Bug 456772 - Review Request: libv4l - Collection of video4linux support libraries
Review Request: libv4l - Collection of video4linux support libraries
Status: CLOSED RAWHIDE
Product: Fedora
Classification: Fedora
Component: Package Review (Show other bugs)
rawhide
All Linux
medium Severity medium
: ---
: ---
Assigned To: manuel wolfshant
Fedora Extras Quality Assurance
:
Depends On:
Blocks:
  Show dependency treegraph
 
Reported: 2008-07-26 18:29 EDT by Hans de Goede
Modified: 2008-07-28 05:31 EDT (History)
4 users (show)

See Also:
Fixed In Version:
Doc Type: Bug Fix
Doc Text:
Story Points: ---
Clone Of:
Environment:
Last Closed: 2008-07-28 05:31:02 EDT
Type: ---
Regression: ---
Mount Type: ---
Documentation: ---
CRM:
Verified Versions:
Category: ---
oVirt Team: ---
RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host:
Cloudforms Team: ---
wolfy: fedora‑review+
kevin: fedora‑cvs+


Attachments (Terms of Use)

  None (edit)
Description Hans de Goede 2008-07-26 18:29:37 EDT
Spec URL: http://people.atrpms.net/~hdegoede/libv4l.spec
SRPM URL: http://people.atrpms.net/~hdegoede/libv4l-0.3.7-1.fc9.src.rpm
Description:
libv4l is a collection of libraries which adds a thin abstraction layer on
top of video4linux2 devices. The purpose of this (thin) layer is to make it
easy for application writers to support a wide variety of devices without
having to write separate code for different devices in the same class. libv4l
consists of 3 different libraries: libv4lconvert, libv4l1 and libv4l2.

libv4lconvert offers functions to convert from any (known) pixelformat
to V4l2_PIX_FMT_BGR24 or V4l2_PIX_FMT_YUV420.

libv4l1 offers the (deprecated) v4l1 API on top of v4l2 devices, independent
of the drivers for those devices supporting v4l1 compatibility (which many
v4l2 drivers do not).

libv4l2 offers the v4l2 API on top of v4l2 devices, while adding for the   
application transparent libv4lconvert conversion where necessary.

---

Reviewers note, this lib is part of the F-10 better webcam support feature:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/BetterWebcamSupport#Test_Plan
Comment 1 manuel wolfshant 2008-07-26 18:48:22 EDT
Package Review
==============

Key:
 - = N/A
 x = Check
 ! = Problem
 ? = Not evaluated

=== REQUIRED ITEMS ===
 [x] Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
 [x] Spec file name must match the base package %{name}, in the format %{name}.spec.
 [x] Package meets the Packaging Guidelines.
 [x] Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one
supported architecture.
     Tested on: devel/x86_64
 [x] Rpmlint output:
source RPM: empty
binary RPM:empty
 [x] Package is not relocatable.
 [x] Buildroot is correct
(%{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n))
 [x] Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets other
legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging Guidelines.
 [x] License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
     License type:LGPLv2+
 [x] If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the license(s) in
its own file, then that file, containing the text of the license(s) for the
package is included in %doc.
 [x] Spec file is legible and written in American English.
 [x] Sources used to build the package matches the upstream source, as provided
in the spec URL.
     SHA1SUM of package: d2d50f40ee9998b68a2d69449170a655dd4270a3
libv4l-0.3.7.tar.gz
 [x] Package is not known to require ExcludeArch
 [x] All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that are
listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
 [-] The spec file handles locales properly.
 [x] ldconfig called in %post and %postun if required.
 [x] Package must own all directories that it creates.
 [x] Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
 [x] Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
 [x] Permissions on files are set properly.
 [x] Package has a %clean section, which contains rm -rf %{buildroot} (or
$RPM_BUILD_ROOT).
 [x] Package consistently uses macros.
 [x] Package contains code, or permissable content.
 [-] Large documentation files are in a -doc subpackage, if required.
 [x] Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
 [x] Header files in -devel subpackage, if present.
 [-] Static libraries in -devel subpackage, if present.
 [-] Package requires pkgconfig, if .pc files are present.
 [x] Development .so files in -devel subpackage, if present.
 [x] Fully versioned dependency in subpackages, if present.
 [x] Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la).
 [-] Package contains a properly installed %{name}.desktop file if it is a GUI
application.
 [x] Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.

=== SUGGESTED ITEMS ===
 [x] Latest version is packaged.
 [x] Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
 [-] Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains
translations for supported Non-English languages, if available.
 [x] Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.
     Tested on: devel/x86_64
 [?] Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported
architectures.
     Tested on:
 [?] Package functions as described.
I have no hardware to test with, sorry
 [x] Scriptlets must be sane, if used.
 [-] The placement of pkgconfig(.pc) files is correct.
 [x] File based requires are sane.


================
*** APPROVED ***
================
                  
Comment 2 Hans de Goede 2008-07-26 18:59:54 EDT
Wow, that was fast, thanks! But you forgot to set the fedora-review flag to +,
can you fix that please?

New Package CVS Request
=======================
Package Name:      libv4l
Short Description: Collection of video4linux support libraries
Owners:            jwrdegoede
Branches:          F-8 F-9
InitialCC:
Cvsextras Commits: Yes
Comment 3 Kevin Fenzi 2008-07-28 00:18:48 EDT
cvs done.
Comment 4 Hans de Goede 2008-07-28 05:31:02 EDT
Imported and build for rawhide, closing.

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