Bug 226048 - Merge Review: libtheora
Merge Review: libtheora
Product: Fedora
Classification: Fedora
Component: libtheora (Show other bugs)
All Linux
medium Severity medium
: ---
: ---
Assigned To: Michel Alexandre Salim
Fedora Package Reviews List
: Reopened
Depends On: 478651
  Show dependency treegraph
Reported: 2007-01-31 14:28 EST by Nobody's working on this, feel free to take it
Modified: 2015-07-15 11:25 EDT (History)
6 users (show)

See Also:
Fixed In Version:
Doc Type: Bug Fix
Doc Text:
Story Points: ---
Clone Of:
Last Closed: 2007-04-13 19:31:52 EDT
Type: ---
Regression: ---
Mount Type: ---
Documentation: ---
Verified Versions:
Category: ---
oVirt Team: ---
RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host:
Cloudforms Team: ---
kevin: fedora‑cvs+

Attachments (Terms of Use)

  None (edit)
Description Nobody's working on this, feel free to take it 2007-01-31 14:28:01 EST
Fedora Merge Review: libtheora

Initial Owner: besfahbo@redhat.com
Comment 1 Michel Alexandre Salim 2007-03-18 20:11:32 EDT
Almost ready for approval (see Maybe and Bad section)

- Package name matches upstream
- Spec file name matches base package name
- License matches actual license, included in %doc, is FLOSS
- Spec written in American English, is legible
- Source matches upstream
- Package builds fine on all supported architectures
- Build requirements complete
- ldconfig called properly
- directory ownerships OK
- files listing: no duplicates
- file permissions OK
- Inter-dependencies OK

- Why --enable-static=yes ?

- rpmlint:
  E: libtheora invalid-version 1.0alpha7
     according to the Naming Guidelines, the 'alpha' part should be
     part of the release tag
  W: libtheora-devel summary-ended-with-dot
  E: theora-tools binary-or-shlib-defines-rpath

  No documentation for libtheora-devel and theora-tools, but that's fine

- Source URL not provided. Also, use .tar.bz2 instead of .tar.gz?
Comment 2 Matthias Clasen 2007-04-11 07:13:07 EDT
All the Bads and Maybes seem to be fixed in the current rawhide package, except
for the version. The only way to fix it that I can see would be to add an epoch,
since rpm considers 1.0alpha > 1.0. Is this worth an epoch ?
Comment 3 Ville Skyttä 2007-04-11 11:29:06 EDT
Introducing an Epoch should be delayed as long as it makes sense.  The next
upstream version might for example be "1.1" instead of "1.0" which would mean an
Epoch introduced today would have had only negative effects.
Comment 4 Michel Alexandre Salim 2007-04-13 19:31:52 EDT
I guess we'll have to wait until a stable version is out (hopefully it won't be
called 1.0).

Closing this bug, since in this case it's a review of an existing package and
there's no owner set
Comment 5 Hans de Goede 2008-04-18 05:24:46 EDT
I would like to request early branching for F-10 of libtheora

Package Change Request
Package Name: libtheora
New Branches: F-9
Comment 6 Kevin Fenzi 2008-04-18 12:22:57 EDT
cvs done.
Comment 7 Debarshi Ray 2009-01-02 15:11:08 EST
(In reply to comment #3)

Re-opening the review.

> Introducing an Epoch should be delayed as long as it makes sense.

We do need to fix this now. See: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/478651
Comment 8 Cole Robinson 2015-02-11 15:37:38 EST
Mass reassigning all merge reviews to their component. For more details, see this FESCO ticket:


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


How to handle this bug is left to the discretion of the package maintainer.
Comment 9 Jan Kurik 2015-07-15 11:25:15 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:

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