Red Hat Bugzilla – Full Text Bug Listing
|Summary:||Review Request: mingw32-libvorbis - MinGW build of the libvorbis Vorbis General Audio Compression Codec library|
|Product:||[Fedora] Fedora||Reporter:||Mihai Limbășan <mihai>|
|Component:||Package Review||Assignee:||Nobody's working on this, feel free to take it <nobody>|
|Status:||CLOSED NOTABUG||QA Contact:||Fedora Extras Quality Assurance <extras-qa>|
|Version:||rawhide||CC:||fedora-mingw, fedora-package-review, josh, mihai, notting, rjones|
|Fixed In Version:||Doc Type:||Bug Fix|
|Doc Text:||Story Points:||---|
|Last Closed:||2010-12-17 10:25:02 EST||Type:||---|
|oVirt Team:||---||RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host:|
|Bug Depends On:||529548|
Description Mihai Limbășan 2009-10-18 13:01:18 EDT
Spec URL: http://rpms.limbasan.ro/fedora/11/SPECS/mingw32-libvorbis.spec SRPM URL: http://rpms.limbasan.ro/fedora/11/SRMPS/mingw32-libvorbis-1.2.3-2.fc11.src.rpm Description: This is a MinGW crosscompiler port of libvorbis. The spec file was created based on the example at http://hg.et.redhat.com/cgi-bin/hg-misc.cgi/fedora-mingw--devel/file/3d9d4c1db042/example/mingw32-example.spec#l1 and on the main Fedora libogg spec, taking into account the MinGW SIG packaging guildelines at http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/MinGW . rpmlint output: [mimock@home syncup]$ rpmlint mingw32-libvorbis-1.2.3-2.fc11.noarch.rpm mingw32-libvorbis-static-1.2.3-2.fc11.noarch.rpm mingw32-libvorbis-1.2.3-2.fc11.src.rpm mingw32-libvorbis-static.noarch: E: arch-independent-package-contains-binary-or-object /usr/i686-pc-mingw32/sys-root/mingw/lib/libvorbis.a mingw32-libvorbis-static.noarch: E: arch-independent-package-contains-binary-or-object /usr/i686-pc-mingw32/sys-root/mingw/lib/libvorbisenc.a mingw32-libvorbis-static.noarch: E: arch-independent-package-contains-binary-or-object /usr/i686-pc-mingw32/sys-root/mingw/lib/libvorbisfile.a mingw32-libvorbis-static.noarch: W: no-documentation 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 3 errors, 1 warnings. which are OK accoring to the packaging guidelines. Since there is no current mingw32-libvorbis package I decided to go for the latest upstream version, 1.2.3, instead of Fedora's 1.2.0 + patches. The -m4 patch is Fedora's -m4 patch, corrected to apply cleanly on 1.2.3. The -acconf patch helps in replacing the ancient config.sub, config.guess, and libtool shipped by upstream with current versions. The package depends on mingw32-libogg - see bug #529548 - which is available at the same test repo ( http://rpms.limbasan.ro/fedora/11/i386/ ). It builds cleanly in mock (minus make check which would BuildRequire Wine due to the nature of the package.) If there's any way to get Koji to perform a scratch build using third party packages, I couldn't figure it out, so there's no Koji link for the moment.
Comment 1 Richard W.M. Jones 2009-10-19 08:20:27 EDT
Looks sane. Same comment about packaging the static library. If you want to get these reviewed, you'll have to ask someone nicely on the fedora-mingw / fedora-devel-list mailing lists, and probably swap a review with someone.
Comment 2 Mihai Limbășan 2009-10-19 09:07:14 EDT
Thanks, will do.
Comment 3 Mihai Limbășan 2009-10-19 14:59:31 EDT
Improved package, bumped revision. New URLs: Spec URL: http://rpms.limbasan.ro/fedora/11/SPECS/mingw32-libvorbis.spec SRPM URL: http://rpms.limbasan.ro/fedora/11/SRPMS/mingw32-libvorbis-1.2.3-3.fc11.src.rpm Changes as follows: - Removed -static package. - aclocal and pkgconfig directories under _mingw32_libdir are no longer installed, mingw32-filesystem already provides them. - Removed redundant BuildRequire mingw32-binutils which is already Required by mingw32-gcc. - Moved checks to the proper build stage. - Cosmetic cleanup. rpmlint says: [mimock@home mingw32-libvorbis]$ rpmlint -v *rpm mingw32-libvorbis.noarch: I: checking mingw32-libvorbis.src: I: checking 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. Again no Koji link due to dependency on mingw32-libogg (bug #529548). Tests complete successfully, builds cleanly in mock.
Comment 4 Jason Tibbitts 2010-11-05 09:18:16 EDT
Your package submissions still build and they seem to me to be clean, but before putting in any review work I'd like to ask, since it's been over a year since anyone has looked at them, if you're still interested in submitting them. Please let me know; if so I'll try to move forward with reviews and sponsorship.