SPEC URL: http://www.vtscrew.com/projectM-libvisual.spec SRPM URL: http://www.vtscrew.com/projectM-libvisual-1.2.0-1.fc9.src.rpm Description: This package allows the use of the projectM visualization plugin through any libvisual compatible applications. No errors or warnings from rpmlint.
I have a new SPEC in original location, and a new SRPM: http://www.vtscrew.com/projectM-libvisual-1.2.0-2.fc9.src.rpm
(fedora-review flags must be set by a reviewer, please revert)
Sorry about that. I thought it was like the CVS flag, where you would mark the ? when it needed review.
I have a new SPEC in original location, and a new SRPM: http://www.vtscrew.com/projectM-libvisual-1.2.0-3.fc9.src.rpm
* URL needs corrected Thanks for updating the SPEC, addressing common issues with other packages. Here are my notes for this one: * Again, the licensing of this one is a disaster. Any replies from upstream yet? ConfigFile.h is MIT COPYING is GPLv2+ lvtoprojectM.h LGPLv2+ The source file actor_projectM.cpp does not have any license indicated, hence we should assume that one is what the COPYING file says. Then the final license should be (until there is a clarification by upstream) License: LGPLv2+ and GPLv2+ and MIT What do you think? * %{_libdir}/libvisual-0.4/actor/ is owned by libvisual-plugins. Rpmbuild does not pick up this dependency. Please check whether projectM-libvisual depends on libvisual-plugins. If yes, explicitly require libvisual-plugins. If no, own the directory %{_libdir}/libvisual-0.4/actor/ . * You should get rid of the commented out lines unless there's a reason (e.g. if it is an explanation for a command, patch etc.) # Just a general reminder. When you put a (build-)dependency like BR: libprojectM-devel = %{version} ? this package will not build if there is an upstream update to libprojectM-devel but no update is made to this one. Then you will need to come back to this package and update the BR. It is fine to do so, but keep in mind that you can also use ">=" instead of "=", to save some work.
I'll have to wait until I get home to test the libvisual-plugins question, but I've got everything else worked out. As I said in the -jack bug, I haven't heard back from them about the license, and I'm concerned about how they are reacting to the license issues. It could just be they haven't gotten together about it, and back to me yet. At least this one doesn't link to any GPL libraries, so we should be okay if they want it to be LGPL. New source will come as soon as I can check out the libvisual-plugins issue.
I have a new SPEC in original location, and a new SRPM: http://www.vtscrew.com/projectM-libvisual-1.2.0-4.fc9.src.rpm
Good to go. Just update the license information of the relevant packages, if there is need, whenever you get a reply from upstream. I guess we are done with projectM ( at least for now :) ) ----------------------------------------------------- This package (projectM-libvisual) is APPROVED by oget -----------------------------------------------------
New Package CVS Request ======================= Package Name: projectM-libvisual Short Description: projectM visualizations through libvisual Owners: imntreal Branches: F-8 F-9 F-10 InitialCC: imntreal
cvs done.
projectM-libvisual-1.2.0-4.fc8 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 8. http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/projectM-libvisual-1.2.0-4.fc8
projectM-libvisual-1.2.0-4.fc9 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 9. http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/projectM-libvisual-1.2.0-4.fc9
projectM-libvisual-1.2.0-4.fc9 has been pushed to the Fedora 9 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
projectM-libvisual-1.2.0-4.fc8 has been pushed to the Fedora 8 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
projectM-libvisual-1.2.0-4.fc10 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 10. http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/projectM-libvisual-1.2.0-4.fc10
projectM-libvisual-1.2.0-4.fc10 has been pushed to the Fedora 10 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.