Spec URL: http://wiki.open.hr/~zpintar/fedora10/SPECS/me-tv.spec SRPM URL: http://wiki.open.hr/~zpintar/fedora10/SRPMS/me-tv-0.8.12-1.fc10.src.rpm Description: Me TV is a GNOME desktop application for watching digital television services that use the DVB standard. Me TV works with DVB-T, DVB-C, DVB-S and ATSC cards that have kernel driver support. Me TV reads the Electronic Program Guide (EPG) data that is transmitted over the air to populate a built-in program guide which can be used for scheduling recordings. mock pass in Fedora 10, but build in Koji fail! Why? http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=1355399 rpmlint is clean Application works after localinstall.
Created attachment 344052 [details] build.log from my mock This is build.log produced by mock after successfully build the package.
Created attachment 344112 [details] Patch to compile Compiles with the attached. http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=1355776 http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=1355793 i.e. ---------------------------------------- #include <linux/types.h> #include <sys/types.h> ---------------------------------------- fails but ---------------------------------------- #include <sys/types.h> #include <linux/types.h> ---------------------------------------- succeeds. ref (from google): http://lkml.indiana.edu/hypermail/linux/kernel/0902.0/01335.html Some notes (note that I have not tested this software) - suggest to add INSTALL="install -p" to 'make install' to keep timestamps on installed files - This package should own the directory %{_datadir}/%{name}/ - Would you check if the following build.log what you expect? ---------------------------------------- Optional engines support: xine engine ................: yes libvlc engine ..............: no MPlayer engine .............: no xine-lib engine ............: no GStreamer library engine ...: no ---------------------------------------- It seems that "xine-lib engine" "GStreamer library engine" can be enabled with some BRs in Fedora and some configure option, however configure.ac says they are experimental so I am not sure if you intentionally disabled this or not. ?? From src/xine_engine.cc, this software seems to launch "xine" program : ---------------------------------------- 49 void XineEngine::play(const Glib::ustring& mrl) 50 { 56 StringList argv; 57 argv.push_back("xine"); 115 try 116 { 117 Glib::spawn_async_with_pipes("/tmp", 118 argv, ---------------------------------------- However xine binary is in xine package, which is in rpmfusion-free. Does this software work even if "xine" rpm is removed?
Please see http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=299
(In reply to comment #2) > - Would you check if the following build.log what you expect? > ---------------------------------------- > Optional engines support: > xine engine ................: yes > libvlc engine ..............: no > MPlayer engine .............: no > xine-lib engine ............: no > GStreamer library engine ...: no > ---------------------------------------- > It seems that "xine-lib engine" "GStreamer library engine" > can be enabled with some BRs in Fedora and some configure option, > however configure.ac says they are experimental so > I am not sure if you intentionally disabled this or not. Of course, I investigates this. The other engines are experimental, and I do not think that is smart to compile on Fedora something what is "experimental" ;) This is documented in config help: ---------------------------------------------- --enable-xine-engine Enable Xine engine support (default disabled) --enable-mplayer-engine Enable experimental MPlayer engine support (default disabled) --enable-libvlc-engine Enable experimental VLC library engine support (default disabled) --enable-xine-lib-engine Enable experimental xine-lib engine support (default disabled) --enable-libgstreamer-engine Enable experimental GStreamer library engine support (default enabled) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ But if you think that it is all right to be compiled with these engines, no problem, I will compile :) > However xine binary is in xine package, which is in > rpmfusion-free. Does this software work even if > "xine" rpm is removed? Me TV has own xine engine and xine-lib build inside itself. So, I think that it do not need any xine dependency. Does this program work without "xine" rpm I still do not sure, but I'll investigate this, too. This is the part of Me TV's /src directory list: ----------------------------------------------------------------- 6200 2009-05-02 01:40 xine_engine.cc 1554 2009-05-02 01:43 xine_engine.h 277256 2009-05-14 15:32 xine_engine.o 12210 2009-03-27 13:45 xine_lib_engine.cc 2209 2009-05-08 12:38 xine_lib_engine.h 60648 2009-05-14 15:32 xine_lib_engine.o ----------------------------------------------------------------- I investigated licenses for Me TV and Xine, and all of these sources are under GPL license, so I can not find a reason why should not to be packaged for Fedora repo.
(In reply to comment #3) > Please see http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=299 Hmm, I read it, but I still can not find any non-GPL licenses info under this source, and all dependencies what its call is on Fedora repo.
The problem is not the license, but with patents, because without patented codecs the me-tv application is useless.(In reply to comment #5) > (In reply to comment #3) > > Please see http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=299 > > Hmm, I read it, but I still can not find any non-GPL licenses info under this > source, and all dependencies what its call is on Fedora repo. The problem is not the license, but patents, because without patented codecs the me-tv application is useless.
(In reply to comment #6) > > The problem is not the license, but patents, because without patented codecs > the me-tv application is useless. Okey, but where (or on which way) exactly Me TV uses (implements) patented codecs? Just I said earlier, all dependencies needed by this soft are from Fedora repo, not from RPM Fusion (except Xine itself, but I do not know yet, works Me TV without Xine RPM package or not). Are these codecs within the source, if they are why the author of upstream has not written copyright information?
(In reply to comment #7) > (In reply to comment #6) > > > > The problem is not the license, but patents, because without patented codecs > > the me-tv application is useless. > > Okey, but where (or on which way) exactly Me TV uses (implements) patented > codecs? Just I said earlier, all dependencies needed by this soft are from It either calls an external application (like Xine) or is linked with a library that does the decoding (ffmpeg via libxine, etc). You must have the backend to actually see anything and the backend decodes MPEG streams. > Fedora repo, not from RPM Fusion (except Xine itself, but I do not know yet, > works Me TV without Xine RPM package or not). Me-TV can be started without Xine, but cannot be used if using means watching the TV. > Are these codecs within the source, if they are why the author of upstream has > not written copyright information? Please read the discussion in my RPM Fusion review request referenced in comment #3
(In reply to comment #8) > > Me-TV can be started without Xine, but cannot be used if using means watching > the TV. OK, that is something what I do not know yet... Bu if you sure, then it is a good reason why should not to be on Fedora repo. It's OK for me. I can packaged this for RPM Fusion, but there is a packager for this. The only problem is that packaging seems to be abandoned. (no changes from 2009-02-17) If there are problems with some engines inside Me TV please notify that all of them (excluding xine) are experimental! So what is your suggestion about this program? Do you want package Me-TV for Fedora's users? I want! According to this, there is my new SPEC and SRPM: http://wiki.open.hr/~zpintar/fedora10/SPECS/me-tv.spec http://wiki.open.hr/~zpintar/fedora10/SRPMS/me-tv-0.8.12-2.fc10.src.rpm
See https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=501006 for review of xine-ui (xine in rpmfusion).
(In reply to comment #9) > (In reply to comment #8) > > > > Me-TV can be started without Xine, but cannot be used if using means watching > > the TV. > > OK, that is something what I do not know yet... Bu if you sure, then it is a > good reason why should not to be on Fedora repo. > > It's OK for me. I can packaged this for RPM Fusion, but there is a packager for > this. I am the packager in RPM Fusion, but feel free to start a new review or takeover the existing one.
(In reply to comment #11) > > I am the packager in RPM Fusion, but feel free to start a new review or > takeover the existing one. Ok, than. Xine RPM packet is needed for run Me TV. In that case, we must close this thread and continue to resolve RPM Fusion's Dan, I suggest that we use this mine spec if you agree? Of course, I call Tasaka to help us at RPM Fusion...
(In reply to comment #12) > (In reply to comment #11) > > > > I am the packager in RPM Fusion, but feel free to start a new review or > > takeover the existing one. > > Ok, than. Xine RPM packet is needed for run Me TV. > > In that case, we must close this thread and continue to resolve RPM Fusion's > > Dan, I suggest that we use this mine spec if you agree? > Of course, I call Tasaka to help us at RPM Fusion... I think xine is OK for inclusion into Fedora, since all of the requirements are already in Fedora. I'm adding the xine review as a blocker on this one. There's no problem in getting this one into Fedora, too.
(In reply to comment #13) > > I think xine is OK for inclusion into Fedora, since all of the requirements are > already in Fedora. I'm adding the xine review as a blocker on this one. > > There's no problem in getting this one into Fedora, too. Super, then bring Xine to Fedora and leave Me TV on Fedora, too. But in this case, we must remove Xine from RPM Fusion... Or, for the first time keep parallel packages of Xine on both repos, but with different names.
(In reply to comment #14) > Super, then bring Xine to Fedora and leave Me TV on Fedora, too. > > But in this case, we must remove Xine from RPM Fusion... > > Or, for the first time keep parallel packages of Xine on both repos, but with > different names. Yeah, if/when xine (i.e. xine-ui) gets in Fedora it should be removed from RPM Fusion. There's no need to remove it, though, just as long as no-one updates it any more (the Fedora package has higher EVR and will be preferred over it). I'm just waiting for someone to review the xine package.
> > I'm just waiting for someone to review the xine package. You mean, your package? Tasaka wrote some observations, isn't it?
(In reply to comment #16) > > > > I'm just waiting for someone to review the xine package. > > You mean, your package? > > Tasaka wrote some observations, isn't it? Yeah. He did, but no-one has proclaimed the review yet.
(In reply to comment #17) > Yeah. He did, but no-one has proclaimed the review yet. But you are sponsor on Fedora, so sponsors need sponsor to make review?
(In reply to comment #18) > (In reply to comment #17) > > Yeah. He did, but no-one has proclaimed the review yet. > > But you are sponsor on Fedora, so sponsors need sponsor to make review? Nope, anyone with packager rights is enough There'd be little sense in becoming a sponsor if you then would need other sponsors to review your packages :)
Now, xine-ui going to Fedora, so I prepared me-tv to use xine-ui. http://wiki.open.hr/~zpintar/fedora10/SPECS/me-tv.spec http://wiki.open.hr/~zpintar/fedora10/SRPMS/me-tv-0.8.12-3.fc10.src.rpm Please, take a look.
Assigning. As far as I checked me-tv source code there seems no legal concern.
Good, so I can expect review soon? :)
For 0.8.12-3: * License - Well, actually COPYING is GPLv3 text, but as far as I checked the source code, the license tag should be "GPLv2+" (Note that just putting GPLv3 license text in the tarball does not specify the version of GPL). * Directory ownership issue - This package should own the directory %_datadir/%name. ! Note that I cannot test this application because I don't have the necessary device.
(In reply to comment #23) > For 0.8.12-3: > > * License > * Directory ownership issue > - This package should own the directory %_datadir/%name. I resolved this: http://wiki.open.hr/~zpintar/fedora10/SPECS/me-tv.spec http://wiki.open.hr/~zpintar/fedora10/SRPMS/me-tv-0.8.12-4.fc10.src.rpm I think that it is all right now. > > ! Note that I cannot test this application because I don't have > the necessary device. My friend tested Koji build and he said that works perfectly with his DVB stick. I can put build on Bodhi to testing for the first time if you think that is will be wise.
Now approving. -------------------------------------------------- This package (me-tv) is APPROVED by mtasaka --------------------------------------------------
Thanks for review. New Package CVS Request ======================= Package Name: me-tv Short Description: GNOME desktop application for watching digital television Owners: grof Branches: F-9 F-10 F-11 InitialCC: grof
cvs done.
me-tv-0.8.12-5.fc10 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 10. http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/me-tv-0.8.12-5.fc10
me-tv-0.8.12-5.fc9 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 9. http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/me-tv-0.8.12-5.fc9
me-tv-0.8.12-5.fc11 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 11. http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/me-tv-0.8.12-5.fc11
Now closing.
me-tv-0.8.12-5.fc11 has been pushed to the Fedora 11 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
me-tv-0.8.12-5.fc10 has been pushed to the Fedora 10 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
me-tv-0.8.12-5.fc9 has been pushed to the Fedora 9 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.