Spec Name or Url: http://www.flyn.org/SRPMS/pitivi.spec SRPM Name or Url: http://www.flyn.org/SRPMS/pitivi-0.9.9.2-1.src.rpm Description: Pitivi is an application using the GStreamer multimedia framework to manipulate a large set of multimedia sources. At this level of development it can be compared to a classic video editing program.
1. Eliminate the various %defines at the beginning of the spec 2. Use "make DESTDIR=$RPM_BUILD_ROOT install" instead of %makeinstall 3. Use -p when manually calling install 4. Need to BuildRequire: gnonlin-devel 5. Need to Require: gnonlin 6. Use desktop-file-install to install .desktop file. See: <http://www.fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#head-254ddf07aae20a23ced8cecc219d8f73926e9755> 7. BuildArch: noarch 8. %files section probably would work better as follows. That way the .pyo files aren't packaged, but will be removed when the packags is uninstalled. %{_bindir}/pitivi %dir %{_libdir}/pitivi %dir %{_libdir}/pitivi/python %dir %{_libdir}/pitivi/python/pitivi %{_libdir}/pitivi/python/pitivi/*.py %{_libdir}/pitivi/python/pitivi/*.pyc %ghost %{_libdir}/pitivi/python/pitivi/*.pyo %dir %{_libdir}/pitivi/python/pitivi/ui %{_libdir}/pitivi/python/pitivi/ui/*.py %{_libdir}/pitivi/python/pitivi/ui/*.pyc %ghost %{_libdir}/pitivi/python/pitivi/ui/*.pyo %{_datadir}/pitivi %{_datadir}/applications/pitivi.desktop 9. I could get pitivi to run, but couldn't seem to get it to do much. 10. Eliminate period at end of summary.
Implemented Jeffrey's suggestions: Spec Name or Url: http://www.flyn.org/SRPMS/pitivi.spec SRPM Name or Url: http://www.flyn.org/SRPMS/pitivi-0.9.9.2-2.src.rpm Description: Pitivi is an application using the GStreamer multimedia framework to manipulate a large set of multimedia sources. At this level of development it can be compared to a classic video editing program.
Here's the full review: - MUST: rpmlint must be run on every package. The output should be posted in the review. Not OK (Does not build yet in mock.) - MUST: The package must be named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. OK - MUST: The spec file name must match the base package %{name}, in the format %{name}.spec OK - MUST: The package must meet the Packaging Guidelines. OK - MUST: The package must be licensed with an open-source compatible license and meet other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging Guidelines. OK (GPL) - MUST: The License field in the package spec file must match the actual license. OK - MUST: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the license(s) for the package must be included in %doc. OK - MUST: The spec file must be written in American English. OK - MUST: The spec file for the package MUST be legible. If the reviewer is unable to read the spec file, it will be impossible to perform a review. Fedora Extras is not the place for entries into the Obfuscated Code Contest ([WWW] http://www.ioccc.org/). OK - MUST: The sources used to build the package must match the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL. Reviewers should use md5sum for this task. OK - MUST: The package must successfully compile and build into binary rpms on at least one supported architecture. Not OK (See notes about BuildRequires and unpackaged files). - MUST: If the package does not successfully compile, build or work on an architecture, then those architectures should be listed in the spec in ExcludeArch. Each architecture listed in ExcludeArch needs to have a bug filed in bugzilla, describing the reason that the package does not compile/build/work on that architecture. The bug number should then be placed in a comment, next to the corresponding ExcludeArch line. New packages will not have bugzilla entries during the review process, so they should put this description in the comment until the package is approved, then file the bugzilla entry, and replace the long explanation with the bug number. The bug should be marked as blocking one (or more) of the following bugs to simplify tracking such issues: [WWW] FE-ExcludeArch-x86, [WWW] FE-ExcludeArch-x64, [WWW] FE-ExcludeArch-ppc Not OK (Does not build yet.) - MUST: A package must not contain any BuildRequires that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines. OK - MUST: All other Build dependencies must be listed in BuildRequires. Not OK (Need to BuildRequire pygtk2-devel gnome-python2 and gstreamer-python) - MUST: The spec file MUST handle locales properly. This is done by using the %find_lang macro. Using %{_datadir}/locale/* is strictly forbidden. OK (No localized text.) - MUST: If the package contains shared library files located in the dynamic linker's default paths, that package must call ldconfig in %post and %postun. If the package has multiple subpackages with libraries, each subpackage should also have a %post/%postun section that calls /sbin/ldconfig. An example of the correct syntax for this is: %post -p /sbin/ldconfig %postun -p /sbin/ldconfig OK (No shared libraries.) - MUST: 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. Without this, use of Prefix: /usr is considered a blocker. OK (Not designed to be relocatable.) - MUST: A package must own all directories that it creates. If it does not create a directory that it uses, then it should require a package which does create that directory. The exception to this are directories listed explicitly in the Filesystem Hierarchy Standard ([WWW] http://www.pathname.com/fhs/pub/fhs-2.3.html), as it is safe to assume that those directories exist. Not OK (missing %{_libdir}/pitivi/python/pitivi/ui/*.glade) - MUST: A package must not contain any duplicate files in the %files listing. OK - MUST: Permissions on files must be set properly. Executables should be set with executable permissions, for example. Every %files section must include a %defattr(...) line. OK - MUST: Each package must have a %clean section, which contains rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT). OK - MUST: Each package must consistently use macros, as described in the macros section of Packaging Guidelines. OK - MUST: The package must contain code, or permissable content. This is described in detail in the code vs. content section of Packaging Guidelines. OK - MUST: Large documentation files should go in a -docs subpackage. (The definition of large is left up to the packager's best judgement, but is not restricted to size. Large can refer to either size or quantity) OK (No large docs.) - MUST: If a package includes something as %doc, it must not affect the runtime of the application. To summarize: If it is in %doc, the program must run properly if it is not present. OK - MUST: Header files or static libraries must be in a -devel package. OK (no header files or static libraries) - MUST: Files used by pkgconfig (.pc files) must be in a -devel package. OK (no pkgconfig files) - MUST: If a package contains library files with a suffix (e.g. libfoo.so.1.1), then library files that end in .so (without suffix) must go in a -devel package. OK (no shared libs) - MUST: In the vast majority of cases, devel packages must require the base package using a fully versioned dependency. OK (no -devel subpackage) - MUST: Packages must NOT contain any .la libtool archives, these should be removed in the spec. OK - MUST: Packages containing GUI applications must include a %{name}.desktop file, and that file must be properly installed with desktop-file-install in the %install section. This is described in detail in the desktop files section of Packaging Guidelines. If you feel that your packaged GUI application does not need a .desktop file, you must put a comment in the spec file with your explanation. OK - MUST: Packages must not own files or directories already owned by other packages. The rule of thumb here is that the first package to be installed should own the files or directories that other packages may rely upon. This means, for example, that no package in Fedora Extras should ever share ownership with any of the files or directories owned by the filesystem or man package. If you feel that you have a good reason to own a file or directory that another package owns, then please present that at package review time. OK - SHOULD: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it. OK - SHOULD: The description and summary sections in the package spec file should contain translations for supported Non-English languages, if available. OK - SHOULD: The reviewer should test that the package builds in mock. Not OK (Missing build requires - see above). - SHOULD: The package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. Not OK (Does not build yet.) - SHOULD: The reviewer should test that the package functions as described. A package should not segfault instead of running, for example. Not OK (Does not build yet.) - SHOULD: If scriptlets are used, those scriptlets must be sane. This is vague, and left up to the reviewers judgement to determine sanity. OK (no scriptlets) - SHOULD: Usually, subpackages other than devel should require the base package using a fully versioned dependency. OK (no subpackages)
Implemented Jeffrey's suggestions: Spec Name or Url: http://www.flyn.org/SRPMS/pitivi.spec SRPM Name or Url: http://www.flyn.org/SRPMS/pitivi-0.9.9.2-3.src.rpm Description: Pitivi is an application using the GStreamer multimedia framework to manipulate a large set of multimedia sources. At this level of development it can be compared to a classic video editing program.
The package itself looks fine now, but I still can't get pitivi to do anything for me though. I can add some OGG/Theora videos and kind of stick them into the timeline, but there's all the video is dark green and I can't save/open a project. I have the -bad and -ugly plugins from freshrpms, but if plugins from -bad or -ugly are needed then probably pitivi shouldn't be in FE since the -bad and -ugly plugins can't be in FE.
I'm going to set this to APPROVED to get things moving even though it doesn't seem to work for me... It may just be my laptop messing up.
I don't plan on tagging for FCX until pitivi is more stable. Until then, the package will be available in Rawhide. A new pitivi release is expected soon.
Package Change Request ====================== Package Name: pitivi New Branches: F-8 Would like to upgrade rawhide to new unstable version but be able to keep stable version in F-8.
cvs done.