Bug 225865 - Merge Review: gstreamer-plugins-base [NEEDINFO]
Merge Review: gstreamer-plugins-base
Status: CLOSED WONTFIX
Product: Fedora
Classification: Fedora
Component: gstreamer-plugins-base (Show other bugs)
23
All Linux
medium Severity medium
: ---
: ---
Assigned To: Debarshi Ray
Fedora Package Reviews List
:
Depends On: 478651
Blocks:
  Show dependency treegraph
 
Reported: 2007-01-31 13:59 EST by Nobody's working on this, feel free to take it
Modified: 2016-08-10 05:45 EDT (History)
4 users (show)

See Also:
Fixed In Version:
Doc Type: Bug Fix
Doc Text:
Story Points: ---
Clone Of:
Environment:
Last Closed: 2016-08-10 05:45:43 EDT
Type: ---
Regression: ---
Mount Type: ---
Documentation: ---
CRM:
Verified Versions:
Category: ---
oVirt Team: ---
RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host:
Cloudforms Team: ---
debarshir: needinfo? (ajax)


Attachments (Terms of Use)
Sample Spec file fixes. (4.17 KB, patch)
2009-01-04 11:10 EST, Debarshi Ray
no flags Details | Diff
Sample Patch1 to avoid libtheora version checking. (393 bytes, patch)
2009-01-04 11:11 EST, Debarshi Ray
no flags Details | Diff

  None (edit)
Description Nobody's working on this, feel free to take it 2007-01-31 13:59:12 EST
Fedora Merge Review: gstreamer-plugins-base

http://cvs.fedora.redhat.com/viewcvs/devel/gstreamer-plugins-base/
Initial Owner: ajackson@redhat.com
Comment 1 Debarshi Ray 2009-01-04 11:06:24 EST
MUST Items: 

xx - rpmlint is unclean on RPM and SRPM
    + See: http://rishi.fedorapeople.org/gstreamer-plugins-base.rpmlint

OK - follows Naming Guidelines
    + Although the upstream tarball is named gst-plugins-base, the project is
      named gstreamer, which is the prefix used by Debian also.

OK - spec file is named as %{name}.spec

xx - package does not meet Packaging Guidelines
    + Please try not to mix spaces and tabs as field separators.
    + You could consider passing --disable-gnome_vfs to %configure, because
      a simple non-Mock or non-Koji rpmbuild will fail if gnome-vfs is present
      due to PolicyKit-gnome, abiword, brasero, evolution, yelp, etc..
    + According to
      https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Beware_of_Rpath we
      should avoid rpaths, especially for standard locations like %{_libdir}.
      Here is a possible solution:
      BuildRequires: libtool
      [...]
      %build
      %configure \
      [...]
      rm -f ./libtool
      cp %{_bindir}/libtool .
      [...]
    + Here is how the unused-direct-shlib-dependency can be removed:
      https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackageMaintainers/Common_Rpmlint_Issues#unused-direct-shlib-dependency
    + According to
      https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Why_the_.25makeinstall_macro_should_not_be_used
      %makeinstall macro should not be used. To also preserve timestamps you
      could consider using:
      make install INSTALL="%{__install} -p" DESTDIR=$RPM_BUILD_ROOT
    + Why not include ChangeLog, NEWS and RELEASE in %doc?
    + According to
      https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Documentation the
      REQUIREMENTS file should not be distributed.
    + The most recent entry in the %changelog has a typo. The
      %{version}-%{release} should be 0.10.21-3.
    + In the %changelog %files should be replaced by %%files in this entry:
      * Wed Jan 18 2006 John (J5) Palmieri <johnp@redhat.com> - 0.10.2-1
    + The following lines in gst-libs/gst/fft, are responsible for
      libgstfft-0.10.so.0.15.0 calling exit:
      kiss_fftr_f32.c:81:    exit (1);
      kiss_fftr_f32.c:138:    exit (1);
      kiss_fftr_f64.c:81:    exit (1);
      kiss_fftr_f64.c:138:    exit (1);
      kiss_fftr_s16.c:81:    exit (1);
      kiss_fftr_s16.c:138:    exit (1);
      kiss_fftr_s32.c:81:    exit (1);
      kiss_fftr_s32.c:138:    exit (1);
      I do not know what we can do about this, but nowadays rpmlint marks this
      as a warning.

OK - license meets Licensing Guidelines
OK - License field meets actual license

xx - upstream license file included in %doc
    + COPYING contains the GPLv2, while the actual license of this package is
      LGPLv2+. Please include COPYING.LIB instead.

OK - spec file uses American English
OK - spec file is legible
OK - sources match upstream sources

xx - package does not build successfully
    + Libtheora has a broken version numbering in its *.pc file. See:
      https://bugzilla.redhat.com/478651 Since the version of libtheora in
      Fedora 8 and above is recent enough, we can disable the version check in
      the configure script.

OK - ExcludeArch not needed

OK - build dependencies correctly listed
    + Pedantically speaking 'BuildRequires: libtheora >= 1.0' is wrong, but
      libtheora has a broken NEVRA (https://bugzilla.redhat.com/478651) so
      we have to live with it.

OK - locales handled properly

xx - %post and %postun do not invoke ldconfig
    + Since shared libraries are being installed in the dynamic linker's
      default path, ldconfig should be invoked in the %post and %postun
      scriptlets. See:
      https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/ScriptletSnippets#Shared_libraries

OK - package is not relocatable

xx - file and directory ownership
    + The -devel sub-package should have 'Requires: gtk-doc' as it installs
      files under /usr/share/gtk-doc.
    + The -devel sub-package should have 'Requires: pkgconfig' as it installs
      files under /usr/lib/pkgconfig. Or has the new autogenerated pkgconfig
      dependencies feature removed this requirement?

OK - no duplicates in %file

OK - file permissions set properly
    + The preferred attribute definition is: %defattr(-,root,root,-)

OK - %clean present
OK - macros used consistently
OK - contains code and permissable content
OK - -doc is not needed
OK - contents of %doc does not affect the runtime
OK - header files in -devel
OK - no static libraries

xx - -devel has *.pc file and does not require pkgconfig
    + The -devel sub-package should have 'Requires: pkgconfig' as it installs
      a *.pc file under /usr/lib/pkgconfig. Or has the new autogenerated
      pkgconfig dependencies feature removed this requirement?

OK - library files without suffix in -devel
    + Some plugins, which are shared libraries without a suffix, are in the
      main package. This is fine.

xx - -devel does not require base package using fully versioned dependency
    + The -devel subpackage should have
      'Requires: %{name} = %{version}-%{release}' instead of just
      'Requires: %{name} = %{version}'. Is there any reason for this to be
      otherwise?

OK - no libtool archives
OK - %{name}.desktop file not needed
OK - does not own files or directories owned by other packages
OK - buildroot correctly prepped
OK - all file names valid UTF-8

SHOULD Items:

OK - upstream provides license text
xx - no translations for description and summary

xx - package does not build in mock successfully
    + Libtheora has a broken version numbering in its *.pc file. See:
      https://bugzilla.redhat.com/478651 Since the version of libtheora in
      Fedora 8 and above is recent enough, we can disable the version check in
      the configure script.

OK - package builds on all supported architectures
OK - package functions as expected

xx - scriptlets are not sane
    + Since shared libraries are being installed in the dynamic linker's
      default path, ldconfig should be invoked in the %post and %postun
      scriptlets. See:
      https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/ScriptletSnippets#Shared_libraries

OK - subpackages other than -devel are not needed
OK - pkgconfig files in -devel
OK - no file dependencies
Comment 2 Debarshi Ray 2009-01-04 11:10:06 EST
Created attachment 328137 [details]
Sample Spec file fixes.
Comment 3 Debarshi Ray 2009-01-04 11:11:34 EST
Created attachment 328138 [details]
Sample Patch1 to avoid libtheora version checking.
Comment 4 Debarshi Ray 2009-01-21 04:32:31 EST
Ping?
Comment 5 Cole Robinson 2015-02-11 15:37:00 EST
Mass reassigning all merge reviews to their component. For more details, see this FESCO ticket:

  https://fedorahosted.org/fesco/ticket/1269

If you don't know what merge reviews are about, please see:

  https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Merge_Reviews

How to handle this bug is left to the discretion of the package maintainer.
Comment 6 Jan Kurik 2015-07-15 11:25:44 EDT
This bug appears to have been reported against 'rawhide' during the Fedora 23 development cycle.
Changing version to '23'.

(As we did not run this process for some time, it could affect also pre-Fedora 23 development
cycle bugs. We are very sorry. It will help us with cleanup during Fedora 23 End Of Life. Thank you.)

More information and reason for this action is here:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/BugZappers/HouseKeeping/Fedora23
Comment 7 Wim Taymans 2016-08-10 05:45:43 EDT
Obsolete now, fixes are included already

Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.