Spec URL: https://pkgs.rpmfusion.org/cgit/free/jellyfin.git/plain/jellyfin.spec?id=90efcae72cfbcb8ee3198792a6d6b88cd642039a SRPM URL: https://koji.rpmfusion.org/kojifiles/packages/jellyfin/10.8.10/1.fc39/src/jellyfin-10.8.10-1.fc39.src.rpm Description: Jellyfin is a free software media system that puts you in control of managing and streaming your media. Fedora Account System Username: mooninite
Taking this review.
Initial spec review: > # Set .NET runtime identitfier string > %ifarch aarch64 > %define dotnet_rid fedora.%{fedora}-arm64 > %else > %define dotnet_rid fedora.%{fedora}-x64 > %endif This confuses me with the ExcludeArch statement in the spec: "ExcludeArch: %{power64} ppc64le %{arm}" Is the intent that this only works with x86_64 and AArch64? If that's the case, this should use "ExclusiveArch: x86_64 aarch64" > Source2: %{name}-nupkgs.tar.xz > Source3: %{name}-nupkgs2.tar.xz > [...] > dotnet nuget add source %{_builddir}/jellyfin-nupkgs -n jellyfin-nupkgs > dotnet nuget add source %{_builddir}/jellyfin-nupkgs2 -n jellyfin-nupkgs2 > dotnet nuget disable source nuget.org > dotnet nuget disable source "NuGet official package source" I'm slightly confused here. Are NuGet packages source or binary artifacts? Depending on what they are, we may need more help from the DotNet SIG. Additionally, as a general comment, this is missing bundled provides for the vendored stuff. Cf. https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/fesco/Bundled_Software_policy/ > Requires: ffmpeg This should be changed to "ffmpeg-free", since that's what we have in Fedora.
The License tag will also need to be updated to list all the licenses of the bundled stuff shipped too... Cf. https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/legal/license-field/
.NET upstream only provides .NET for x86_64 (they call this x64) and aarch64 (they call this arm64). It's likely that Jellyfin upstream has only tested these two configurations. On Fedora, though, .NET is available on all Fedora architectures (aarch64, ppc64le, s390x and x86_64), at least starting with .NET 7. This package uses .NET 6 which is missing ppc64le. The RID computation stuff ought to be fixed through something like this https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2170536 but I hadn't prioritized it high enough. I can look into that if that's a major issue for this package. > Are NuGet packages source or binary artifacts? NuGet packages (.nupkg files) are binary artifacts, similar to .jar files. We don't have a great way to walk through the dependency tree and build everything from source yet. More at https://github.com/dotnet/source-build/discussions/2960 Looking at https://pkgs.rpmfusion.org/cgit/free/jellyfin.git/tree/jellyfin-offline.sh, some of these binary dependencies should become part of the .NET SDK itself starting with .NET 8. On the other hand, I am not even sure where to start with this: $ tar tf jellyfin-nupkgs.tar.xz | wc -l 17427
There are 236 dependencies in jellyfin-nupkgs.tar.xz and currently I do not have the time required to build Provides and License fields to record their values. This review may stall until such time frees up or someone else wants to continue the review.
Plus there are at least 100 Node.js dependencies... Help is welcome.
This is an automatic check from review-stats script. This review request ticket hasn't been updated for some time, but it seems that the review is still being working out by you. If this is right, please respond to this comment clearing the NEEDINFO flag and try to reach out the submitter to proceed with the review. If you're not interested in reviewing this ticket anymore, please clear the fedora-review flag and reset the assignee, so that a new reviewer can take this ticket. Without any reply, this request will shortly be resetted.
This is an automatic action taken by review-stats script. The ticket reviewer failed to clear the NEEDINFO flag in a month. As per https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Policy_for_stalled_package_reviews we reset the status and the assignee of this ticket.
(In reply to Michael Cronenworth from comment #6) > Plus there are at least 100 Node.js dependencies... Help is welcome. Note to self: There's tools to help with this. https://packages.fedoraproject.org/pkgs/nodejs-packaging/nodejs-packaging-bundler/
This is an automatic check from review-stats script. This review request ticket hasn't been updated for some time. We're sorry it is taking so long. If you're still interested in packaging this software into Fedora repositories, please respond to this comment clearing the NEEDINFO flag. You may want to update the specfile and the src.rpm to the latest version available and to propose a review swap on Fedora devel mailing list to increase chances to have your package reviewed. If this is your first package and you need a sponsor, you may want to post some informal reviews. Read more at https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/How_to_get_sponsored_into_the_packager_group. Without any reply, this request will shortly be considered abandoned and will be closed. Thank you for your patience.
Hello, I do realize that this is possibly an old ticket. I am sorry that it hasn't been reviewed yet. Let me trigger the Fedora Review Service to see if the package builds successfully. Hopefully, a green check mark will attract some reviewer. If I am resurrecting an old ticket that you are not interested in anymore, my apologies, feel free to close it. [fedora-review-service-build]
There seems to be some problem with the following file. SRPM URL: https://koji.rpmfusion.org/kojifiles/packages/jellyfin/10.8.10/1.fc39/src/jellyfin-10.8.10-1.fc39.src.rpm Fetching it results in a 401 Unauthorized error. Please make sure the URL is correct and publicly available. --- This comment was created by the fedora-review-service https://github.com/FrostyX/fedora-review-service If you want to trigger a new Copr build, add a comment containing new Spec and SRPM URLs or [fedora-review-service-build] string.
I plan on writing my own script to write out Provides and License data.
Created attachment 2115639 [details] jellyfin 10.11.3 bundled list I found a few hours to submit myself to torture and wrote a few pieces of garbage bash, jq, and awk filters to get the bundled data. Attached is the list that is generated. 353 dotnet 1597 nodejs 1950 total bundled packages This is not even starting to grab license data. @Neal Gompa I feel like I'll win the largest RPM spec file if I continue to do this. What should we do here?
Isn't this on rpmfusion already? What is the relation between the packages?
Yes, it is in RPMFusion. This package review is to move it to Fedora.
Blockers: - While bundled dependencies can be generated their license data is not easily generated. - Since the dotnet dependencies are binaries and there is no tool available to make rebuilding from source an easy task I am afraid this review will close.