Bug 772217

I will take this review

Formal review still pending, but here's a few comments for your review:

- %defattr(-, root, root) no longer required rpmbuild >= 4.4 See http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#File_Permissions

- BuildRoot tag and clean sections only required for EPEL 5 and under See http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#BuildRoot_tag

- Mixed use of macros $RPM_BUILD_ROOT and %buildroot

- Also to to provide explicit requires on the devel package to the base package. See http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Requiring_Base_Package


rpmlint output mostly OK, just the W: spelling-error %description, W: unused-direct-shlib-dependency and W: summary-not-capitalized need reviewing

bsjones@f15laptop SPECS$rpmlint /home/bsjones/rpmbuild/RPMS/x86_64/libyuv-*
libyuv.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US webcam -> web cam, web-cam, became
libyuv.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US bilinear -> bi linear, bi-linear, linear
libyuv-devel.x86_64: W: summary-not-capitalized C development files for libyuv
libyuv-devel.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US Asdditional -> Additional, Traditional, Conditional
libyuv-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation
3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 5 warnings.

bsjones@f15laptop SPECS$rpmlint libyuv
libyuv.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US webcam -> web cam, web-cam, became
libyuv.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US bilinear -> bi linear, bi-linear, linear
libyuv.x86_64: W: unused-direct-shlib-dependency /usr/lib64/libyuv.so.0.0.0 linux-vdso.so.1
libyuv.x86_64: W: unused-direct-shlib-dependency /usr/lib64/libyuv.so.0.0.0 /usr/lib64/libstdc++.so.6
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 4 warnings.
bsjones@f15laptop SPECS$rpmlint libyuv-devel
libyuv-devel.x86_64: W: summary-not-capitalized C development files for libyuv
libyuv-devel.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US Asdditional -> Additional, Traditional, Conditional
libyuv-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 3 warnings.

Brendan, thanks for starting reviewing this. Your notes clearly highlight the importance of review process - Although I had tried to do my best, I missed a lot of issues which you pointed in your comment.

I'll update srpm in a couple of hours.

No problem. Just a note, ignore the linux-vdso.so.1 rpmlint warning. See bug 738082.

New package:

http://peter.fedorapeople.org/WebRTC/libyuv.spec
http://peter.fedorapeople.org/WebRTC/libyuv-0-0.2.20120109svn128.fc16.src.rpm


Koji scratchbuild for Rawhide:

http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=3638567

This package is APPROVED

+ OK
- N/A
X Needs attention

Required
========

[+] named according to the Package Naming Guidelines 
[+] The spec file name must match the base package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec 
[+] Meet the Packaging Guidelines
unless building for F12 and below  or EPEL   
[+] Be licensed with a Fedora approved license and meet the Licensing
Guidelines 
[+] The License field in the package spec file must match the actual license 
[+] License file must be included in %doc
[+] The spec file must be written in American English
[+] The spec file for the package MUST be legible
[+] The sources used to build the package must match the upstream source
[+] Successfully compile and build into binary rpms on at least one primary
architecture
[+] Proper use of ExcludeArch 
[+] All build dependencies must be listed in BuildRequires
[+] The spec file MUST handle locales properly
[+] Shared library files (not just symlinks) in any of the dynamic linker's
default paths, must call ldconfig in %post and %postun
[+] Packages must NOT bundle copies of system libraries
[-] If the package is designed to be relocatable, the packager must state this
fact in the request for review, along with the rationalization for relocation
of that specific package
[+] A package must own all directories that it creates
directories under this
[+] A Fedora package must not list a file more than once in the spec file's
%files listings
[+] Permissions on files must be set properly
[+] Each package must consistently use macros
[+] The package must contain code, or permissable content
[-] Large documentation files must go in a -doc subpackage
[+] If a package includes something as %doc, it must not affect the runtime of
the application
[+] Header files must be in a -devel package
[-] Static libraries must be in a -static package
[+] library files that end in .so (without suffix) must go in a -devel package
[+] devel packages must require the base package using a fully versioned
dependency
[+] Packages must NOT contain any .la libtool archives
[-] GUI apps must include a %{name}.desktop file, properly installed with
desktop-file-install in the %install section 
[+] Packages must not own files or directories already owned by other packages
[+] All filenames in rpm packages must be valid UTF-8

Should Items
============
[+] the packager SHOULD query upstream for any missing license text files to
include it
[-] Non-English language support for description and summary sections in the
package spec if available
[+] The reviewer should test that the package builds in mock
[+] The package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported
architectures
[+] The reviewer should test that the package functions as described
[+] If scriptlets are used, those scriptlets must be sane
[+] Usually, subpackages other than devel should require the base package using
a fully versioned dependency
[+] The placement of pkgconfig(.pc) should usually be placed in a -devel pkg
[-] If the package has file dependencies outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin,
/usr/bin, or /usr/sbin consider requiring the package which provides the file
instead of the file itself
[-] Should contain man pages for binaries/scripts

Thanks!

New Package SCM Request
=======================
Package Name: libyuv
Short Description: YUV conversion and scaling functionality library
Owners: peter
Branches: el5 el6 f16
InitialCC:

Git done (by process-git-requests).

libyuv-0-0.3.20120109svn128.el5 has been submitted as an update for Fedora EPEL 5.
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/libyuv-0-0.3.20120109svn128.el5

libyuv-0-0.3.20120109svn128.el6 has been submitted as an update for Fedora EPEL 6.
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/libyuv-0-0.3.20120109svn128.el6

libyuv-0-0.3.20120109svn128.fc16 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 16.
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/libyuv-0-0.3.20120109svn128.fc16

libyuv-0-0.3.20120109svn128.fc16 has been pushed to the Fedora 16 testing repository.

libyuv-0-0.3.20120109svn128.fc16 has been pushed to the Fedora 16 stable repository.

libyuv-0-0.3.20120109svn128.el5 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 5 stable repository.

libyuv-0-0.3.20120109svn128.el6 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 6 stable repository.

Package Change Request
======================
Package Name: libyuv
New Branches: epel7
Owners: peter
InitialCC:

Git done (by process-git-requests).

libyuv-0-0.22.20121221svn522.el7 has been submitted as an update for Fedora EPEL 7.
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/libyuv-0-0.22.20121221svn522.el7

libyuv-0-0.22.20121221svn522.el7 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 7 stable repository.