https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1713852 --- Comment #1 from Simone Caronni <negativo17(a)gmail.com&gt; --- To test the library, I have a valid DCP cinema license that was given to me by a friend to test DCP support in VLC, I can open some signed DCP packages with a valid timestamp. I can barely get 2 fps on a recent PC :) %ldconfig_scriptlets is in the spec file as I plan to build also for epel-7. $ rpmlint asdcplib.spec 0 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1713852 --- Comment #3 from Nicolas Chauvet (kwizart) <kwizart(a)gmail.com&gt; --- About OpenSSL and GPL, See also: https://lwn.net/Articles/428111/ https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing:FAQ#What.27s_the_deal_with_the_O... By itself, there is nothing wrong. Just a notice that it will be used by VideoLAN vlc which is covered by the GPL. I've been confirmed by VideoLan chairman (jb) that using asdcplib built with openssl fall under the "GPL system library exception", at least on Fedora. For the record, vlc as built on others OS, is patching asdcplib to use nettle/gcrypt so it's compliant with the GPL. (IANAL) -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1713852 Robert-André Mauchin <zebob.m(a)gmail.com&gt; changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC| |zebob.m(a)gmail.com Assignee|nobody(a)fedoraproject.org |zebob.m(a)gmail.com Flags| |fedora-review? --- Comment #5 from Robert-André Mauchin <zebob.m(a)gmail.com&gt; --- - We now forbid to glob the major soname version of a library to avoid unintentional soname bumps, be more precise instead: %{_libdir}/*.so.2* - Just use: Source0: https://github.com/cinecert/%{name}/archive/%{gittag}/%{name}-%{version}.... - Why a libs subpackage? You could put the lib directly into the main package? asdcplib-libs is a bit redundant. Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed ===== MUST items ===== C/C++: [x]: Package does not contain kernel modules. [x]: Package contains no static executables. [x]: If your application is a C or C++ application you must list a BuildRequires against gcc, gcc-c++ or clang. [x]: Header files in -devel subpackage, if present. [x]: ldconfig not called in %post and %postun for Fedora 28 and later. [x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la) [x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs. [x]: Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present. Generic: [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. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: "Unknown or generated", "BSD 3-clause "New" or "Revised" License", "FSF All Permissive License". 12 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/bob/packaging/review/asdcplib/review-asdcplib/licensecheck.txt [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise. [x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception. [x]: Changelog in prescribed format. [x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content. [-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application. [x]: Development files must be in a -devel package [x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime. [x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory names). [x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. [x]: Package does not generate any conflict. [x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target. [-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and Provides are present. [x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary. [x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English. [-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need. [x]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise. [x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag. [-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Documentation size is 10240 bytes in 1 files. [x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines [x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one supported primary architecture. [x]: Package installs properly. [x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces. Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [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 %license. [x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. [x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages. [x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT [x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the beginning of %install. [x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time. [x]: Dist tag is present. [x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files. [x]: Permissions on files are set properly. [x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install DESTDIR=... doesn't work. [x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters. [x]: Package does not use a name that already exists. [x]: Package is not relocatable. [x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL. [x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format %{name}.spec. [x]: File names are valid UTF-8. [x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local ===== SHOULD items ===== Generic: [-]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it. [x]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments). [x]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in asdcplib-libs , asdcplib-tools , asdcplib-devel [?]: Package functions as described. [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]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. [-]: %check is present and all tests pass. [x]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files. [x]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock. [x]: Buildroot is not present [x]: Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) [x]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin. [x]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file [x]: The placement of pkgconfig(.pc) files are correct. [x]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag [x]: SourceX is a working URL. [x]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified. ===== EXTRA items ===== Generic: [x]: Rpmlint is run on debuginfo package(s). Note: No rpmlint messages. [x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages. Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [x]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package is arched. [x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. Rpmlint ------- Checking: asdcplib-libs-2.10.32-2.fc31.x86_64.rpm asdcplib-tools-2.10.32-2.fc31.x86_64.rpm asdcplib-devel-2.10.32-2.fc31.x86_64.rpm asdcplib-debuginfo-2.10.32-2.fc31.x86_64.rpm asdcplib-debugsource-2.10.32-2.fc31.x86_64.rpm asdcplib-2.10.32-2.fc31.src.rpm asdcplib-tools.x86_64: W: no-documentation asdcplib-tools.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary as-02-info asdcplib-tools.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary as-02-unwrap asdcplib-tools.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary as-02-wrap asdcplib-tools.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary asdcp-info asdcplib-tools.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary asdcp-test asdcplib-tools.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary asdcp-unwrap asdcplib-tools.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary asdcp-util asdcplib-tools.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary asdcp-wrap asdcplib-tools.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary blackwave asdcplib-tools.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary j2c-test asdcplib-tools.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary klvwalk asdcplib-tools.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary kmfilegen asdcplib-tools.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary kmrandgen asdcplib-tools.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary kmuuidgen asdcplib-tools.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary wavesplit asdcplib-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation 6 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 17 warnings. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1713852 Robert-André Mauchin <zebob.m(a)gmail.com&gt; changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |POST Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #7 from Robert-André Mauchin <zebob.m(a)gmail.com&gt; --- Package approved. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1713852 --- Comment #9 from Igor Gnatenko <i.gnatenko.brain(a)gmail.com&gt; --- (fedscm-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/asdcplib -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1713852 --- Comment #11 from Fedora Update System <updates(a)fedoraproject.org&gt; --- FEDORA-EPEL-2019-f311a442f2 has been submitted as an update to Fedora EPEL 7. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2019-f311a442f2 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1713852 --- Comment #13 from Fedora Update System <updates(a)fedoraproject.org&gt; --- asdcplib-2.10.32-3.el7 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 7 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for instructions on how to install test updates. You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2019-f311a442f2 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1713852 Fedora Update System <updates(a)fedoraproject.org&gt; changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ON_QA |MODIFIED --- Comment #15 from Fedora Update System <updates(a)fedoraproject.org&gt; --- FEDORA-2019-cb23d5f508 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 30. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2019-cb23d5f508 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1713852 Fedora Update System <updates(a)fedoraproject.org&gt; changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|MODIFIED |ON_QA --- Comment #17 from Fedora Update System <updates(a)fedoraproject.org&gt; --- asdcplib-2.10.32-4.fc30 has been pushed to the Fedora 30 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for instructions on how to install test updates. You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2019-cb23d5f508 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1713852 --- Comment #19 from Fedora Update System <updates(a)fedoraproject.org&gt; --- asdcplib-2.10.32-4.el7 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 7 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for instructions on how to install test updates. You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2019-7fef0fd359 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1713852 --- Comment #21 from Fedora Update System <updates(a)fedoraproject.org&gt; --- asdcplib-2.10.32-4.el7 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 7 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component