Bug 2267321 - Review Request: rtmpdump - Toolkit for RTMP streams
Summary: Review Request: rtmpdump - Toolkit for RTMP streams
Keywords:
Status: CLOSED ERRATA
Alias: None
Product: Fedora
Classification: Fedora
Component: Package Review
Version: rawhide
Hardware: All
OS: Linux
medium
medium
Target Milestone: ---
Assignee: Neal Gompa
QA Contact: Fedora Extras Quality Assurance
URL: https://rtmpdump.mplayerhq.hu/
Whiteboard:
Depends On:
Blocks: MultimediaSIG
TreeView+ depends on / blocked
 
Reported: 2024-03-01 15:31 UTC by Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski
Modified: 2026-07-07 00:48 UTC (History)
3 users (show)

Fixed In Version:
Clone Of:
Environment:
Last Closed: 2026-07-07 00:48:48 UTC
Type: ---
Embargoed:
ngompa13: fedora-review+


Attachments (Terms of Use)
The .spec file difference from Copr build 7095301 to 7106479 (1.18 KB, patch)
2024-03-05 09:02 UTC, Fedora Review Service
no flags Details | Diff
The .spec file difference from Copr build 7106479 to 7106653 (757 bytes, patch)
2024-03-05 09:41 UTC, Fedora Review Service
no flags Details | Diff

Description Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski 2024-03-01 15:31:38 UTC
Spec URL: https://rathann.fedorapeople.org/review/rtmpdump/rtmpdump.spec
SRPM URL: https://rathann.fedorapeople.org/review/rtmpdump/rtmpdump-2.4-25.20240228gitb7c7976.fc41.src.rpm
Description:
rtmpdump is a toolkit for RTMP streams. All forms of RTMP are supported,
including rtmp://, rtmpt://, rtmpe://, rtmpte://, and rtmps://.

Fedora Account System Username: rathann

Comment 1 Fedora Review Service 2024-03-01 15:36:25 UTC
Copr build:
https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/7095301
(succeeded)

Review template:
https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2267321-rtmpdump/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/07095301-rtmpdump/fedora-review/review.txt

Please take a look if any issues were found.


---
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.

Comment 2 Neal Gompa 2024-03-01 16:37:37 UTC
> Version:        2.4
> Release:        25.%{gitdate}git%{shortcommit}%{?dist}

Please switch to snapshot versioning in the Version field.

Cf. https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Versioning/#_snapshots

Comment 3 Xavier Bachelot 2024-03-01 16:53:57 UTC
> %install
> make CRYPTO=GNUTLS DESTDIR=%{buildroot} prefix=%{_prefix} mandir=%{_mandir} libdir=%{_libdir} install

Please use %make_install and split the long line

Comment 4 Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski 2024-03-01 20:58:04 UTC
(In reply to Neal Gompa from comment #2)
> > Version:        2.4
> > Release:        25.%{gitdate}git%{shortcommit}%{?dist}
> 
> Please switch to snapshot versioning in the Version field.
> 
> Cf.
> https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Versioning/
> #_snapshots

No. This is a post-release snapshot and upstream has just announced the intention to release 2.6:
https://lists.mplayerhq.hu/pipermail/rtmpdump/2024-March/002554.html

Comment 5 Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski 2024-03-01 20:58:33 UTC
(In reply to Xavier Bachelot from comment #3)
> > %install
> > make CRYPTO=GNUTLS DESTDIR=%{buildroot} prefix=%{_prefix} mandir=%{_mandir} libdir=%{_libdir} install
> 
> Please use %make_install and split the long line

OK. Anything else?

Comment 6 Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski 2024-03-05 08:56:40 UTC
(In reply to Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski from comment #4)
> (In reply to Neal Gompa from comment #2)
> > > Version:        2.4
> > > Release:        25.%{gitdate}git%{shortcommit}%{?dist}
> > 
> > Please switch to snapshot versioning in the Version field.
> > 
> > Cf.
> > https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Versioning/
> > #_snapshots
> 
> No. This is a post-release snapshot and upstream has just announced the
> intention to release 2.6:
> https://lists.mplayerhq.hu/pipermail/rtmpdump/2024-March/002554.html

On second thought, OK.

Comment 7 Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski 2024-03-05 08:57:26 UTC
(In reply to Xavier Bachelot from comment #3)
> > %install
> > make CRYPTO=GNUTLS DESTDIR=%{buildroot} prefix=%{_prefix} mandir=%{_mandir} libdir=%{_libdir} install
> 
> Please use %make_install and split the long line

Done. It's no longer so long after the change. :)

Comment 8 Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski 2024-03-05 08:58:43 UTC
Spec URL: https://rathann.fedorapeople.org/review/rtmpdump/rtmpdump.spec
SRPM URL: https://rathann.fedorapeople.org/review/rtmpdump/rtmpdump-2.4%5e20240228gitb7c7976-1.fc41.src.rpm

* Tue Mar 05 2024 Dominik Mierzejewski <dominik> - 2.4^20240228gitb7c7976-1
- use recommended snapshot versioning
- use modern macros

Comment 9 Fedora Review Service 2024-03-05 09:02:23 UTC
Created attachment 2020126 [details]
The .spec file difference from Copr build 7095301 to 7106479

Comment 10 Fedora Review Service 2024-03-05 09:02:25 UTC
Copr build:
https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/7106479
(succeeded)

Review template:
https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2267321-rtmpdump/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/07106479-rtmpdump/fedora-review/review.txt

Please take a look if any issues were found.


---
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.

Comment 11 Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski 2024-03-05 09:36:04 UTC
[fedora-review-service-build]

- ensure Fedora CFLAGS and LDFLAGS are used consistently

Comment 12 Fedora Review Service 2024-03-05 09:41:43 UTC
Created attachment 2020134 [details]
The .spec file difference from Copr build 7106479 to 7106653

Comment 13 Fedora Review Service 2024-03-05 09:41:45 UTC
Copr build:
https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/7106653
(succeeded)

Review template:
https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2267321-rtmpdump/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/07106653-rtmpdump/fedora-review/review.txt

Please take a look if any issues were found.


---
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.

Comment 14 Xavier Bachelot 2024-03-13 18:54:02 UTC
Maybe missing an explicit BR: make rather than relying on deps ?
Otherwise looks good, will try and do a full review asap.

Comment 15 Keith Diaz 2024-03-14 06:31:35 UTC Comment hidden (spam)
Comment 16 Fedora Review Service 2024-03-14 06:47:50 UTC
Copr build:
https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/7158010
(succeeded)

Review template:
https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2267321-rtmpdump/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/07158010-rtmpdump/fedora-review/review.txt

Please take a look if any issues were found.


---
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.

Comment 17 Xavier Bachelot 2024-03-14 10:36:12 UTC
Could you please take a look at the following rpmlint warnings ?
librtmp.x86_64: W: crypto-policy-non-compliance-gnutls-2 /usr/lib64/librtmp.so.1 gnutls_priority_init
librtmp.x86_64: W: crypto-policy-non-compliance-gnutls-1 /usr/lib64/librtmp.so.1 gnutls_priority_set_direct

See https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/CryptoPolicies/

And also :
librtmp.x86_64: W: binary-or-shlib-calls-gethostbyname /usr/lib64/librtmp.so.1

Both shall probably at least be notified to upstream.

Comment 18 Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski 2024-03-19 11:38:04 UTC
(In reply to Xavier Bachelot from comment #14)
> Maybe missing an explicit BR: make rather than relying on deps ?

Good point, will add when importing.

> Otherwise looks good, will try and do a full review asap.

Thanks!

(In reply to Xavier Bachelot from comment #17)
> Could you please take a look at the following rpmlint warnings ?
> librtmp.x86_64: W: crypto-policy-non-compliance-gnutls-2
> /usr/lib64/librtmp.so.1 gnutls_priority_init
> librtmp.x86_64: W: crypto-policy-non-compliance-gnutls-1
> /usr/lib64/librtmp.so.1 gnutls_priority_set_direct
> 
> See https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/CryptoPolicies/
> 
> And also :
> librtmp.x86_64: W: binary-or-shlib-calls-gethostbyname
> /usr/lib64/librtmp.so.1
> 
> Both shall probably at least be notified to upstream.

They are valid and I sent them upstream. However, I wonder if RTMP
even supports IPv6 or if there are specific old crypto
requirements at work here.

Comment 19 Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski 2024-03-19 14:33:44 UTC
rtmpdump upstream advice is not to include it in Fedora at all.

Only two RPM Fusion packages depend on rtmpdump: get-flash-videos and qarte.

First is dead (last commit 4 years ago) and the second is specific to one website (arte.tv).

So... probably not worth packaging. Withdrawing review request.

Comment 20 Soundboard Max 2026-04-01 06:46:41 UTC Comment hidden (spam)
Comment 21 Fedora Review Service 2026-04-01 06:47:04 UTC
There seems to be some problem with the following file.
SRPM URL: https://rathann.fedorapeople.org/review/rtmpdump/rtmpdump-2.4%5E20240228gitb7c7976-1.fc41.src.rpm
Fetching it results in a 404 Not Found 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.

Comment 22 soundbuttonspro 2026-05-15 16:19:30 UTC Comment hidden (spam)
Comment 23 Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski 2026-06-14 08:12:00 UTC
Reopening.

Comment 24 Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski 2026-06-17 09:42:37 UTC
Spec URL: https://rathann.fedorapeople.org/review/rtmpdump/rtmpdump.spec
SRPM URL: https://rathann.fedorapeople.org/review/rtmpdump/rtmpdump-2.6~20240301git6f6bb13-1.fc45.src.rpm

rebased on top of current RPM Fusion package:
- use proper macros
- BuildRequire make explicitly
- ensure Fedora CFLAGS and LDFLAGS are used

Comment 25 Neal Gompa 2026-06-18 03:15:06 UTC
Taking this review.

Comment 26 Neal Gompa 2026-06-18 03:20:36 UTC
Spec review:

> # The tools are GPLv2+. The library is LGPLv2+, see below.
> License:        GPL-2.0-or-later

This needs a "SourceLicense" stanza, since the source code is both.

> %package -n librtmp-devel
> Summary:        Files for librtmp development
> License:        LGPLv2+

License tag needs to be updated to SPDX.

> %autosetup -p1 -n %{name}-%{commit}

This can be simplified to "%autosetup -C -p1" unless you want to ship this in EPEL.

> %make_build SYS=posix CRYPTO=GNUTLS SHARED=yes XCFLAGS="%{optflags}" XLDFLAGS="%{build_ldflags}"

XCFLAGS should use "%{build_cflags}".

Comment 27 Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski 2026-06-19 19:08:07 UTC
Spec URL: https://rathann.fedorapeople.org/review/rtmpdump/rtmpdump.spec
SRPM URL: https://rathann.fedorapeople.org/review/rtmpdump/rtmpdump-2.6~20240301git6f6bb13-2.fc45.src.rpm

    - use SourceLicense: tag to describe source license accurately
    - use SPDX expression for -devel subpackage license
    - use build_cflags instead of optflags

Comment 28 Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski 2026-06-19 19:09:36 UTC
[fedora-review-service-build]

Comment 29 Fedora Review Service 2026-06-19 19:14:50 UTC
Copr build:
https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/10618238
(succeeded)

Review template:
https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2267321-rtmpdump/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/10618238-rtmpdump/fedora-review/review.txt

Please take a look if any issues were found.


---
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.

Comment 30 Fedora Review Service 2026-06-19 19:16:11 UTC
Copr build:
https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/10618240
(succeeded)

Review template:
https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2267321-rtmpdump/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/10618240-rtmpdump/fedora-review/review.txt

Please take a look if any issues were found.


---
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.

Comment 31 Neal Gompa 2026-06-20 04:08:00 UTC
At this point, it looks good to me.

PACKAGE APPROVED.

Comment 32 Fedora Admin user for bugzilla script actions 2026-06-20 09:06:29 UTC
The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/rtmpdump
Monitoring:
Anitya project is accessible by this link 
`https://release-monitoring.org/project/141551`
 you can modify it manually.
Package wasn't created in Anitya, reason: `Bad Request, some necessary arguments were not provided.`.

Comment 33 Fedora Update System 2026-06-21 18:40:35 UTC
FEDORA-2026-e891f226fd (gstreamer1-plugins-bad-free-1.28.4-3.fc44 and rtmpdump-2.6-4.fc44) has been submitted as an update to Fedora 44.
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2026-e891f226fd

Comment 34 Fedora Update System 2026-06-22 00:54:59 UTC
FEDORA-2026-e891f226fd has been pushed to the Fedora 44 testing repository.
Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command:
`sudo dnf upgrade --enablerepo=updates-testing --refresh --advisory=FEDORA-2026-e891f226fd`
You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2026-e891f226fd

See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.

Comment 35 Fedora Update System 2026-07-07 00:48:48 UTC
FEDORA-2026-e891f226fd (gstreamer1-plugins-bad-free-1.28.4-3.fc44 and rtmpdump-2.6-4.fc44) has been pushed to the Fedora 44 stable repository.
If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.


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