Spec URL: http://thias.fedorapeople.org/review/elisa-plugins-bad/elisa-plugins-bad.spec
SRPM URL: http://thias.fedorapeople.org/review/elisa-plugins-bad/elisa-plugins-bad-0.3.5-1.src.rpm
This package contains the bad set of plugins for the Elisa Media Center.
Notes: This package is split off from the previous "elisa" package, which now requires it. Unlike with gstreamer, here the "bad" plugins are required for elisa to function at all.
Please explain in what way they are "bad". Is it the same way
'gstreamer-plugins-bad' is? There are any legal issues?
(Did short skim thru the package and found no problem on first sight.)
Easy to explain, two things :
1) "bad" are the plugins which are to be improved, and "ugly" are the ones with
2) the current version of Elisa requires the "bad" set of plugins to actually
work (kind of silly if you ask me, but that's the way it is).
The package has been updated to 0.5.3 and is available here :
New blockers have come up, for which I'll submit package reviews :
The latter might be hard to get in, as it's considered WIP, with an unstable API
by it's authors, and has been like this for years...
Add dependency on python-cssutils (bug #457207).
Add dependency on python-twisted-web2 (bug #457219).
There's currently no src.rpm for this.
(In reply to comment #6)
> There's currently no src.rpm for this.
Oops. Fixed now. But all the files needed to create it were already there.
* pigment-python >= 0.3.8 is needed by elisa-plugins-bad-0.5.12-1.fc9.noarch
So, reviewing needs rawhide. (F9: pigment-python-0.3.3-1.fc9.i386)
Since only elisa plugins requires pigment, I'll go ahead and update both pigment and pigment-python in F9.
any update? will there be a new elisa for F9 and F10?
All requirements are now in devel (python-twisted-web2 has not been rebuilt yet, but it will be as soon as its CVS request is taken care of), so the review can be picked up by anyone wanting to see elisa get into at least devel, and hopefully backported to stable Fedora :
All requirements are now in F-9 and F-10 too. Testing for the review should be very easy now!
I'm looking at this now.
Matthias, is there a newer elisa-base? I can't build this SRPM without it.
[spot@velociraptor ~]$ rpmbuild -ba rpmbuild/SPECS/elisa-plugins-bad.spec
error: Failed build dependencies:
elisa-base = 0.5.28 is needed by elisa-plugins-bad-0.5.28-1.fc11.src
The elisa-base package comes from the main elisa one. You should be able to locally rebuild both elisa and elisa-plugins-good in order for elisa-plugins-bad to rebuild, install and work. I'll make sure right now that both are up to 0.5.28 in devel.
elisa and elisa-plugins-good are now up to 0.5.29 in devel, and the package to be reviewed has also been updated.
== Review ==
- rpmlint checks return:
elisa-plugins-bad.noarch: W: no-documentation
elisa-plugins-bad.noarch: E: zero-length /usr/lib/python2.6/site-packages/elisa/plugins/database/widgets/resources.conf
Not sure about that zero length file... make sure it is needed? If so, safe to ignore.
- package meets naming guidelines
- package meets packaging guidelines
- license (GPLv3) OK, text not present in source, matches source
(You may want to advise upstream that not including a copy of GPLv3 with the tarball is a probable license violation.)
- spec file legible, in am. english
- source matches upstream (796221b90981bd7ae3c09ca6535d2c82274742ec)
- package compiles on devel (x86_64)
- no missing BR
- no unnecessary BR
- no locales
- not relocatable
- owns all directories that it creates
- no duplicate files
- permissions ok
- %clean ok
- macro use consistent
- code, not content
- no need for -docs
- nothing in %doc affects runtime (because there is nothing in %doc)
- no need for .desktop file
Thanks a lot!
New Package CVS Request
Package Name: elisa-plugins-bad
Short Description: Bad Plugins for the Elisa Media Center
Branches: F-9 F-10
I see this in rawhide, can you close out this bug?
(In reply to comment #20)
> I see this in rawhide, can you close out this bug?
Now if I could only figure out how to do a chain build for stable releases...
You can't do chain builds for non-rawhide branches. You have to ask rel-eng to do override tags for packages that you need in the buildroot.
> Now if I could only figure out how to do a chain build for stable releases...
You can't. You build the first package and then open a ticket with rel-eng  to get the package tagged for a buildroot override