Bug 233597 - Review Request: pigment - Media Center Toolkit
Summary: Review Request: pigment - Media Center Toolkit
Alias: None
Product: Fedora
Classification: Fedora
Component: Package Review   
(Show other bugs)
Version: rawhide
Hardware: All
OS: Linux
Target Milestone: ---
Assignee: Jef Spaleta
QA Contact: Fedora Package Reviews List
Depends On:
Blocks: 233598
TreeView+ depends on / blocked
Reported: 2007-03-23 12:32 UTC by Matthias Saou
Modified: 2007-11-30 22:11 UTC (History)
2 users (show)

Fixed In Version:
Doc Type: Bug Fix
Doc Text:
Story Points: ---
Clone Of:
Last Closed: 2007-05-02 10:27:19 UTC
Type: ---
Regression: ---
Mount Type: ---
Documentation: ---
Verified Versions:
Category: ---
oVirt Team: ---
RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host:
Cloudforms Team: ---
jspaleta: fedora-review+
wtogami: fedora-cvs+

Attachments (Terms of Use)

Description Matthias Saou 2007-03-23 12:32:55 UTC
Spec URL: http://ftp.es6.freshrpms.net/tmp/extras/pigment/pigment.spec
SRPM URL: http://ftp.es6.freshrpms.net/tmp/extras/pigment/pigment-0.1.4-1.src.rpm
Pigment is a toolkit for writing Media Center software.

Comment 1 Jef Spaleta 2007-04-13 05:51:37 UTC
Is this under active review along with elisa?  If not i can start working on
reviewing these now.  


Comment 2 Matthias Saou 2007-04-13 09:18:35 UTC
Status is not ASSIGNED yet, so I guess you could review :-)

Comment 3 Jef Spaleta 2007-04-15 05:25:32 UTC
uhm lxtnow@gmail.com took assignment for this and the elisa ticket. 

Comment 4 Jef Spaleta 2007-04-15 05:43:41 UTC
Okay first thing to note the SOURCE0 is wrong
it now needs to be

looks like they've re-organized.


Comment 5 Jef Spaleta 2007-04-15 06:01:11 UTC
I think we'll need to a legal review for pigment and elisa.
The actual license is GPL with an additional licensing exception for fluendo
non-gpl plugins. While I personally don't have a problem with that, it's still
not strictly GPL and I think we need a legal review of the additional licensing

Matthias, do you have any comments before I set the review failure and block on

Comment 6 Ralf Corsepius 2007-04-15 06:18:02 UTC
(In reply to comment #5)
> I think we'll need to a legal review for pigment and elisa.
> The actual license is GPL with an additional licensing exception for fluendo
> non-gpl plugins. While I personally don't have a problem with that, it's still
> not strictly GPL and I think we need a legal review of the additional licensing
> terms.

IMO, this is just a case of "GPL with exceptions".

Comment 7 Jef Spaleta 2007-04-15 06:39:58 UTC
Okay here's the run down of the rest of the technical review blockers.

- pigment-devel needs to require gtk-doc for directory ownership of

- need to exclude /usr/lib/pigment-0.1/gstreamer/libpgmrendersink.la
- need to exclude /usr/lib/pigment-0.1/libpgmrendergl1.la

- fix the SOURCE and URL tags to use 
elisa.fluendo.com instead of www.fluendo.com

Additional non-blocking suggestion:
 remove glib2-devel BuildRequires as its pulled in by gtk2-devel

rpmlint returns clean on my locally rpmbuild --rebuild built development binaries

One question:
does pigment count as a python addon, and if so does the python naming scheme
require python-pigment for the package name?


Comment 8 Jef Spaleta 2007-04-15 06:44:02 UTC
(In reply to comment #6)
> IMO, this is just a case of "GPL with exceptions".

Doesn't each unique exceptional clause demand a review? While I'm personally
fine with the fluendo plugin exception, I'd like to avoid a problem later on
after this is published.


Comment 9 Matthias Saou 2007-04-16 09:27:36 UTC
Updated packages here, which fix all problems reported :
Spec URL: http://ftp.es6.freshrpms.net/tmp/extras/pigment/pigment.spec
SRPM URL: http://ftp.es6.freshrpms.net/tmp/extras/pigment/pigment-0.1.4-2.src.rpm
(not the glib2-devel BR, since I prefer keeping it in this particular case)

About the license, I also think it's fine, but feel free to ask on the
mailing-list or even get FE-LEGAL to confirm if you think it's required.

About the name... indeed, pigment should maybe be considered like a python
package. I didn't really think about it, and since it's not just a python
module, but also a system library (libpgmrender.so) and a gstreamer plugin
(libpgmrendersink.so), it might be best to not rename it "python-pigment".

Comment 10 Matthias Saou 2007-04-16 10:46:21 UTC
Spec URL: http://ftp.es6.freshrpms.net/tmp/extras/pigment/pigment.spec
SRPM URL: http://ftp.es6.freshrpms.net/tmp/extras/pigment/pigment-0.1.5-1.src.rpm

* Mon Apr 16 2007 Matthias Saou <http://freshrpms.net/> 0.1.5-1
- Update to 0.1.5.
- Get rid of the /usr/lib64 RPATH on 64bit.

Comment 11 Jef Spaleta 2007-04-17 04:34:08 UTC
Good catch on the rpath

Things look pretty good, just looking over the build log of 0.1.5-1 on x86 and i
still see multiple references to -rpath. Are these a problem as well?

-rpath /usr/lib
-rpath /usr/lib/pigment-0.1/gstreamer
-rpath /usr/lib/python2.5/site-packages


Comment 12 Jef Spaleta 2007-04-18 06:54:16 UTC
okay those -rpath calls are false alarms, running a local build on x86 with
check-rpaths doesn't abort.

Looks good. I'm going to take assignment of this as the reviewer and flag it as
approved.  From the discussion on maintainers-list its pretty clear that this
GPL exception falls into normal allowed license practices. 

+ All build dependencies listed in BuildRequires, 
+ Packages do not contain any .la libtool archives.
+ The package named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
  contains shared library as well as python bindings... 
  not strictly a python addon.
+ MUST: The package must meet the Packaging Guidelines.
+ The package is licensed with GPL with special exception
+ License field in the package spec is GPL.
+ The sources used to build the package match the upstream source, 
   md5sum   d39000c031e35d5a5835343161ce4bf8
   matches included source
+ rpmlint appears to return cleanly
+ The spec file name must match the base package %{name}
+ includes the text of the license(s) in %doc.
+ The spec file is in english-ese.
+ The spec file for the package is legible. 
+ The package must successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms 
   on x86 developement using mock
+ no locales to worry about
+ ldconfig in %post and %postun. 
+ package not relocatable
+ owns all directories that it creates. 
+ no duplicate files in the %files listing.
+ Permissions on files set properly. 
+ %clean section, which contains rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT).
+ consistent use of macros
+ The package contains code, or permissable content. 
+ no doc subpackage. gtk-docs are placed in the -devel package 
+ %doc items do not affect runtime      
+ Header files are in a -devel package.
+ no statics
+ -devel package correctly 'Requires: pkgconfig'
+ library files that end in .so (without suffix) are in a -devel package.
+ devel packages requires the base package using a fully versioned dependency
+ No GUI apps
+ Doesn't duplicate directory or file ownership afaict
+ beginning of %install has rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT).

Comment 13 Matthias Saou 2007-04-18 09:44:53 UTC
New Package CVS Request
Package Name: pigment
Short Description: Media Center Toolkit
Owners: matthias@rpmforge.net
Branches: devel FC-6 EL-5
(only the most current branches as Elisa won't make much sense on old releases)

Comment 14 Jef Spaleta 2007-04-29 04:56:25 UTC
Matthias, you forgot to set the fedora-cvs flag.  I'm setting it now.

-jef"wondering why i hadn't seen a pigment build notice, cuz I'm really keen on
doing the review for elisa after pigments in the tree"spaleta

Comment 15 Matthias Saou 2007-05-02 10:27:19 UTC
Oh, indeed, my bad! It's all done now, and rebuilt. Thanks!

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