Spec URL: http://fab.fedorapeople.org/packages/XO/sugar-record.spec SRPM URL: http://fab.fedorapeople.org/packages/XO/sugar-record-60-1.fc10.src.rpm Project website: http://wiki.laptop.org/go/Record Description: Record is the basic rich-media capture activity for the laptop. It lets you capture still images, video, and/or audio. It has a simple interface and works in both laptop and ebook mode. An interface for sharing pictures among multi XOs during a picture-taking session is a hallmark of the Record activity. Koji scratch build: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=998124 [fab@laptop24 i386]$ rpmlint sugar-record-60* sugar-record.i386: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/share/sugar/activities/Record.activity/_camera.c sugar-record.i386: W: non-standard-group Sugar/Activities sugar-record.i386: E: arch-dependent-file-in-usr-share /usr/share/sugar/activities/Record.activity/_camera.o sugar-record.i386: E: arch-dependent-file-in-usr-share /usr/share/sugar/activities/Record.activity/_camera.so sugar-record.i386: E: library-not-linked-against-libc /usr/share/sugar/activities/Record.activity/_camera.so 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 3 errors, 2 warnings. [fab@laptop24 SRPMS]$ rpmlint sugar-record-60-1.fc10.src.rpm sugar-record.src: W: non-standard-group Sugar/Activities 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings. I guess that there will be more to do on this package because it is not noarch and the camera stuff will not work on Fedora.
Hi Fabian. What is the reason for the camera stuff not working on Fedora?
Hi Fabian, Status? I can review this once the above had been clarified. Peter
I've tried this on F11 and it doesn't work. I've filed this upstream bug on laptop.org trac. http://dev.laptop.org/ticket/9304
I will wait for a release tarball and update the package to 61. http://dev.sugarlabs.org/ticket/801
Fabian, where do we stand on this? Per the above ticket it looks like they spun up a tarball. Do you have a version of this that will work on F11 or F12? Steven
Now there is a tarball available. I will update the package and submit the new files here.
(In reply to comment #6) > Now there is a tarball available. I will update the package and submit the new > files here. Is there an ETA on this?
Setting the fedora-review flag since that seems to have been missed.
(In reply to comment #8) > Setting the fedora-review flag since that seems to have been missed. Nope. Not missed. Awaiting for a package update that compiles on F11/F12
(In reply to comment #6) > Now there is a tarball available. I will update the package and submit the new > files here. Fabian: any update?
sugar-record is no longer noarch. There is some work to do...I post the new files but first I have to fix the rpmlint issues. Spec URL: http://fab.fedorapeople.org/packages/XO/sugar-record.spec SRPM URL: http://fab.fedorapeople.org/packages/XO/sugar-record-64-1.fc11.src.rpm
Thanks for the update. I'll start a review on it shortly so if there's anything else that needs updates you can do it at the same time as the rpmlint issues.
An initial review. Mostly looks good. Just some rpmlint bits to cleanup as you previously mentioned. + rpmlint output rpmlint sugar-record-64-1.fc11.src.rpm sugar-record-64-1.fc12.x86_64.rpm sugar-record.spec sugar-record.src: W: non-standard-group Sugar/Activities sugar-record.x86_64: W: non-standard-group Sugar/Activities sugar-record.x86_64: E: no-binary sugar-record.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/share/sugar/activities/Record.activity/gst/gstvideorate.h sugar-record.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/share/sugar/activities/Record.activity/gst/gstvalve.c sugar-record.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/share/sugar/activities/Record.activity/gst/gstvalve.h sugar-record.x86_64: E: zero-length /usr/share/sugar/activities/Record.activity/gst/ChangeLog sugar-record.x86_64: E: zero-length /usr/share/sugar/activities/Record.activity/gst/NEWS sugar-record.x86_64: E: zero-length /usr/share/sugar/activities/Record.activity/gst/README sugar-record.x86_64: E: zero-length /usr/share/sugar/activities/Record.activity/gst/AUTHORS sugar-record.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/share/sugar/activities/Record.activity/gst/gstvideorate.c sugar-record.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/share/sugar/activities/Record.activity/camerac/camera.c sugar-record.spec:6: W: non-standard-group Sugar/Activities 2 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 5 errors, 8 warnings. For the zero length doc files just remove them. + package name satisfies the packaging naming guidelines + specfile name matches the package base name + package should satisfy packaging guidelines + license meets guidelines and is acceptable to Fedora + license matches the actual package license + %doc includes license file + spec file written in American English + spec file is legible + upstream sources match sources in the srpm 920060cf3238d457691de659c12c25b2edc5fca2 Record-64.tar.bz2 + package successfully builds on at least one architecture tested using koji scratch build + BuildRequires list all build dependencies + %find_lang instead of %{_datadir}/locale/* n/a binary RPM with shared library files must call ldconfig in %post and %postun+ does not use Prefix: /usr + package owns all directories it creates + no duplicate files in %files + %defattr line + %clean contains rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT + consistent use of macros + package must contain code or permissible content n/a large documentation files should go in -doc subpackage + files marked %doc should not affect package ? header files should be in -devel n/a static libraries should be in -static n/a packages containing pkgconfig (.pc) files need 'Requires: pkgconfig' n/a libfoo.so must go in -devel n/a devel must require the fully versioned base + packages should not contain libtool .la files n/a packages containing GUI apps must include %{name}.desktop file + packages must not own files or directories owned by other packages + %install must start with rm -rf %{buildroot} etc. + filenames must be valid UTF-8 Optional: + if there is no license file, packager should query upstream n/a translations of description and summary for non-English languages, if available + reviewer should build the package in mock/koji n/a the package should build into binary RPMs on all supported architectures n/a review should test the package functions as described + scriptlets should be sane n/a pkgconfig files should go in -devel + shouldn't have file dependencies outside /etc /bin /sbin /usr/bin or /usr/sbin
Fabian, is there a status update on this?
Thanks for your help. (In reply to comment #13) > An initial review. Mostly looks good. Just some rpmlint bits to cleanup as you > previously mentioned. > > + rpmlint output The rpmlint output now [fab@laptop09 i586]$ rpmlint sugar-record* sugar-record.i586: W: non-standard-group Sugar/Activities sugar-record.i586: E: no-binary sugar-record.i586: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/share/sugar/activities/Record.activity/camerac/camera.c 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 2 warnings. I removed the embedded gst stuff and added it as a requirement. Spec URL: http://fab.fedorapeople.org/packages/XO/sugar-record.spec SRPM URL: http://fab.fedorapeople.org/packages/XO/sugar-record-64-2.fc11.src.rpm
> http://fab.fedorapeople.org/packages/XO/sugar-record-64-2.fc11.src.rpm Unfortunately you've uploaded the i586.rpm file rather than the srpm.
Please try again. http://fab.fedorapeople.org/packages/XO/sugar-record-64-2.fc11.src.rpm
A few minor issues. This should be removed: /usr/share/sugar/activities/Record.activity/camerac/camera.c The COPYING/README files are included twice: /usr/share/sugar/activities/Record.activity/COPYING /usr/share/sugar/activities/Record.activity/NEWS Also does the removal of the embedded gst stuff make the package noarch again?
Thanks Peter (In reply to comment #18) > A few minor issues. > > This should be removed: > /usr/share/sugar/activities/Record.activity/camerac/camera.c Removed > The COPYING/README files are included twice: > /usr/share/sugar/activities/Record.activity/COPYING > /usr/share/sugar/activities/Record.activity/NEWS Fixed > Also does the removal of the embedded gst stuff make the package noarch again? The package is noarch. Spec URL: http://fab.fedorapeople.org/packages/XO/sugar-record.spec SRPM URL: http://fab.fedorapeople.org/packages/XO/sugar-record-64-3.fc11.src.rpm
Looks fine now. APPROVED!
New Package CVS Request ======================= Package Name: sugar-record Short Description: Recording tool for Sugar Owners: fab Branches: F-11 F-10 InitialCC:
CVS done.
sugar-record-64-3.fc11 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 11. http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/sugar-record-64-3.fc11
sugar-record-64-3.fc10 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 10. http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/sugar-record-64-3.fc10
sugar-record-64-3.fc10 has been pushed to the Fedora 10 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 sugar-record'. You can provide feedback for this update here: http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/F10/FEDORA-2009-8838
sugar-record-64-3.fc11 has been pushed to the Fedora 11 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 sugar-record'. You can provide feedback for this update here: http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/F11/FEDORA-2009-8851
Closing as its now in rawhide.
sugar-record-64-3.fc11 has been pushed to the Fedora 11 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
sugar-record-64-3.fc10 has been pushed to the Fedora 10 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.