Spec URL: http://nicoleau.fabien.free.fr/rpms/SPECS/clive.spec SRPM URL: http://nicoleau.fabien.free.fr/rpms/srpms.fc9/clive-0.4.14-1.fc9.src.rpm Description: clive is a video extraction tool for user-uploaded video hosts such as Youtube, Google Video, Dailymotion, Guba, Metacafe and Sevenload. It can be chained with 3rd party tools for subsequent video re-encoding and and playing. It's my 4th package, but I need a sponsor.
Updated (remove ffmpeg dependancy that only provides more options) : spec : http://nicoleau.fabien.free.fr/rpms/SPECS/clive.spec srpm : http://nicoleau.fabien.free.fr/rpms/srpms.fc9/clive-0.4.14-2.fc9.src.rpm
Update (add sed for Makefile because of "hardcoded" /lib/) : Spec URL : http://nicoleau.fabien.free.fr/rpms/SPECS/clive.spec SRPM URL : http://nicoleau.fabien.free.fr/rpms/srpms.fc9/clive-0.4.14-3.fc9.src.rpm rpmlint output : [builder@FEDOBOX tmp]$ rpmlint -i clive-0.4.14-3.fc9.src.rpm [builder@FEDOBOX tmp]$ rpmlint -i clive-0.4.14-3.fc9.noarch.rpm [builder@FEDOBOX tmp]$ The src.rpm rebuild under mock is OK.
(Removing NEEDSPONSOR: sponsored by me)
*** Bug 390951 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
Is this being worked on by anyone? Otherwise I can take it and proceed in spec file creation.
(In reply to comment #5) > Is this being worked on by anyone? Otherwise I can take it and proceed in spec > file creation. Currently this bug is not reviewed by anyone. If you want, you can assign this bug to yourself.
Uploading new specfile for version 0.4.16. Tested: * build of noarch & src package * rpmlint * basic functionality, RSS, scan, newt-based 'client' on F9 and rawhide * http://mnowak.fedorapeople.org/clive/clive-0.4.16-1.fc9.noarch.rpm * http://mnowak.fedorapeople.org/clive/clive-0.4.16-1.fc9.src.rpm * specfile in attachment or here: http://mnowak.fedorapeople.org/clive/clive.spec Please, review.
> Is this being worked on by anyone? Otherwise I can take it and proceed in spec > file creation. I don't understand. If I opend this review, it was because I was working on the spec file. > Please, review. It seems you are the reviewer.
Sorry. Did not get the process of creating spec/package (reporter) and reviewing (assigner). Feel free to reuse the spec file. Re-assigning back to nobody
> Sorry. Did not get the process of creating spec/package (reporter) and reviewing > (assigner). Feel free to reuse the spec file. Perhaps we could co-maintain the specifile ? btw, update for 0.4.16 : Spec URL : http://nicoleau.fabien.free.fr/rpms/SPECS/clive.spec SRPM URL : http://nicoleau.fabien.free.fr/rpms/srpms.fc9/clive-0.4.16-1.fc9.src.rpm rpmlint output : [builder@FEDOBOX tmp]$ rpmlint -i clive-0.4.16-1.fc9.noarch.rpm [builder@FEDOBOX tmp]$ rpmlint -i clive-0.4.16-1.fc9.src.rpm [builder@FEDOBOX tmp]$ Rebuild under mock is OK.
Thanks for offer. I bet there's not much work here in this package. I'd better find something else to work on. gl.
So is it possible to put status back to "NEW" ?
I guess this is RH bugzilla limitation, never found out how to move it to NEW from another state. Filled bug 452383, you are in Cc.
I'll do informal package review for you.
> %define major_version 0.4 > %define minor_version 16 > Version: %{major_version}.%{minor_version} I don't think it's necessary to have it because of one edit less in Source0 line. But never mind. Looking at random py src file, the license is actually GNU GPLv2+, please, fix the License line in spec. Looking at the Requires line from rpmbuild Requires: /usr/bin/env newt-python python >= 2.4 python(abi) = 2.5 python-feedparser python-urlgrabber xclip I see that you don't need 'python >= 2.4' because RPM-dep-solver said 'python(abi) = 2.5', feel free to omit it. > make %{?_smp_mflags} Useless in Python code. Feel free to echo the variable. It contains just '-j2' or similar. Useful only while compiling C(++) code. Once you are using '%{__sed}' and then 'rm -rf ...' -- be consistent. > %{__sed} -i -e s@"\${exec_prefix}/lib/python2.5/site-packages"@$RPM_BUILD_ROOT/%{python_sitelib}@ Makefile > %{__sed} -i -e s@"\${prefix}/lib/python2.5/site-packages"@$RPM_BUILD_ROOT/%{python_sitelib}@ Makefile Is it really necessary in newer clive version? What happen if the 2 lines are missing? %{_mandir}/man?/%{name}* is more general when it comes to change of the X in clive.X.man file. -- Hope to help.
Update : Spec URL : http://nicoleau.fabien.free.fr/rpms/SPECS/clive.spec SRPM URL : http://nicoleau.fabien.free.fr/rpms/srpms.fc9/clive-0.4.16-2.fc9.src.rpm - Licence updated - smp_mflags removed >> %{__sed} -i -e s@"\${exec_prefix}/lib/python2.5/site-packages"@$RPM_BUILD_ROOT/%{python_sitelib}@ Makefile >> %{__sed} -i -e s@"\${prefix}/lib/python2.5/site-packages"@$RPM_BUILD_ROOT/%{python_sitelib}@ Makefile I think I must keep this lines because of "hardcoded" /lib/.
I still guess it's good idea to be consistent in using macro- v. variable- style rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT but %{__sed} """ You should pick a style and use it consistently throughout your packaging. Mixing the two styles, while valid, is bad from a QA and usability point of view, and should not be done in Fedora packages. """ see https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Using_.25.7Bbuildroot.7D_and_.25.7Boptflags.7D_vs_.24RPM_BUILD_ROOT_and_.24RPM_OPT_FLAGS
updated to use "sed" : Spec URL : http://nicoleau.fabien.free.fr/rpms/SPECS/clive.spec SRPM URL : http://nicoleau.fabien.free.fr/rpms/srpms.fc9/clive-0.4.16-3.fc9.src.rpm
forget rpmlint output : [builder@FEDOBOX tmp]$ rpmlint clive-0.4.16-3.fc9.noarch.rpm 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. [builder@FEDOBOX tmp]$ rpmlint clive-0.4.16-3.fc9.src.rpm 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. [builder@FEDOBOX tmp]$ rebuild under mock is still ok
Yes, I think this package is fine. I don't really see anything worth commenting on. * source files match upstream: c00cc9e1387b26c1a1d3f0a82dd39bbd05c2598a645124bc2efb006d8d21e61d clive-0.4.16.tar.bz2 * package meets naming and versioning guidelines. * specfile is properly named, is cleanly written and uses macros consistently. * summary is OK. * description is OK. * dist tag is present. * build root is OK. * license field matches the actual license. * license is open source-compatible. * license text included in package. * latest version is being packaged. * BuildRequires are proper. * %clean is present. * package builds in mock (rawhide, x86_64). * package installs properly. * rpmlint is silent. * final provides and requires are sane: clive = 0.4.16-3.fc10 = /usr/bin/env newt-python python(abi) = 2.5 python-feedparser python-urlgrabber xclip * owns the directories it creates. * doesn't own any directories it shouldn't. * no duplicates in %files. * file permissions are appropriate. * no scriptlets present. * code, not content. * documentation is small, so no -doc subpackage is necessary. * %docs are not necessary for the proper functioning of the package. APPROVED
Thank you tibbs. Do you want to be in initialCC for cvs request ?
I do not; thanks. I do far too many reviews to be CC'd on all of them.
New Package CVS Request ======================= Package Name: clive Short Description: clive - Video extraction tool for user-uploaded video hosts Owners: eponyme Branches: F-8 F-9 InitialCC: Cvsextras Commits: yes
cvs done.
clive-0.4.16-3.fc9 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 9
clive-0.4.16-3.fc8 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 8
clive-0.4.17-1.fc8 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 8
clive-0.4.17-1.fc9 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 9
clive-0.4.17-1.fc9 has been pushed to the Fedora 9 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. If you want to test the update, you can install it with su -c 'yum --enablerepo=updates-testing update clive'. You can provide feedback for this update here: http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/F9/FEDORA-2008-5873
clive-0.4.17-1.fc8 has been pushed to the Fedora 8 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
clive-0.4.17-1.fc9 has been pushed to the Fedora 9 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
clive-0.4.18-1.fc8 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 8
clive-0.4.18-1.fc9 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 9
Once it is in live, you might want to CLOSE it as NEXTRELEASE.
clive-0.4.18-1.fc9 has been pushed to the Fedora 9 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
clive-0.4.18-1.fc8 has been pushed to the Fedora 8 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
clive-0.4.19-1.fc8 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 8
clive-0.4.19-1.fc9 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 9