https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1129677

Stefan Ringel mail@stefanringel.de changed:

What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- See Also| |https://bugzilla.redhat.com | |/show_bug.cgi?id=1129638

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1129677

--- Comment #2 from Stefan Ringel mail@stefanringel.de --- (In reply to Stefan Ringel from comment #0)

Spec URL: ftp://stefanringel.de/pub/gstreamer1-rtsp-server.spec SRPM URL: ftp://stefanringel.de/pub/gstreamer1-rtsp-server-1.4.0-0.fc22.src.rpm Description:

gstreamer rtsp server version 1.x

Fedora Account System Username: stefanringel

Spec URL: http://stefanringel.de/pub/gstreamer1-rtsp-server.spec SRPM URL: http://stefanringel.de/pub/gstreamer1-rtsp-server-1.4.0-0.fc22.src.rpm

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1129677

Bastien Nocera bnocera@redhat.com changed:

What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |wtaymans@redhat.com

--- Comment #4 from Bastien Nocera bnocera@redhat.com --- *** Bug 1130130 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1129677

Stefan Ringel mail@stefanringel.de changed:

What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Depends On| |1129638

Referenced Bugs:

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1129638 [Bug 1129638] Update to gnome-dvb-daemon 0.2.90

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1129677

--- Comment #6 from Stefan Ringel mail@stefanringel.de --- new specs and srpm:

Spec URL: http://stefanringel.de/pub/gstreamer1-rtsp-server.spec SRPM URL: http://stefanringel.de/pub/gstreamer1-rtsp-server-1.4.0-1.fc22.src.rpm

[sringel@media12 ~]$ rpmlint rpmbuild/SRPMS/gstreamer1-rtsp-server-1.4.0-1.fc22.src.rpm gstreamer1-rtsp-server.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) GStreamer -> G Streamer, Streamer, Steamer 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings.

ps: rpmlint: warning is wrong. GStreamer is correct spelling.

rawhide: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=7404256 o.k.

f22: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=7404681 o.k.

f21: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=7404974 o.k.

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1129677

--- Comment #8 from Stefan Ringel mail@stefanringel.de --- (In reply to Michael Schwendt from comment #7)

...

Group: Development/Libraries License: LGPLv2+ Requires: pkgconfig

Automatic these days, provided that the package contains a .pc file. Examine the Provides and Requires of your built packages.

How, explain?

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1129677

--- Comment #10 from Michael Schwendt bugs.michael@gmx.net --- $ rpm -qpR gstreamer1-rtsp-server-devel-1.4.0-2.fc21.x86_64.rpm |grep pkg /usr/bin/pkg-config pkgconfig pkgconfig(gstreamer-1.0) pkgconfig(gstreamer-1.0) pkgconfig(gstreamer-base-1.0) pkgconfig(gstreamer-plugins-base-1.0)

$ rpm -qp --provides gstreamer1-rtsp-server-devel-1.4.0-2.fc21.x86_64.rpm |grep pkg pkgconfig(gstreamer-rtsp-server-1.0) = 1.4.0

[...]

Requires: gstreamer1 >= %{version} Requires: gstreamer1-plugins-base >= %{version}

Requires: gstreamer1-devel >= %{version} Requires: gstreamer1-plugins-base-devel >= %{version}

Here you should also add %{?_isa} to make these dependencies arch-specific: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Requires_2

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1129677

Stefan Ringel mail@stefanringel.de changed:

What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags| |needinfo?

--- Comment #12 from Stefan Ringel mail@stefanringel.de --- ping ...

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1129677

Wim Taymans wtaymans@redhat.com changed:

What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |sebp@k-d-w.org

--- Comment #13 from Wim Taymans wtaymans@redhat.com --- *** Bug 1190397 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1129677

--- Comment #15 from Stefan Ringel mail@stefanringel.de --- yes, I think.

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1129677

--- Comment #17 from Björn "besser82" Esser bjoern.esser@gmail.com --- Package Review ==============

Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated

Issues: =======

- Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT Note: Using both %{buildroot} and $RPM_BUILD_ROOT See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#macros

---> Either use one or the other. I personally prefer the use of "%{buildroot}", because macros are expanded at parsing of spec-file vs. shell-variables are expandend at run-time of the script.

- Package must own all directories that it creates. Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/lib64/girepository-1.0, /usr/share/gir-1.0 See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#File_and_Directory_Owners...

---> according to guidelines and the fact many packages owning these directories, I'd add ownership for them to this package, too.

Add this to the %files-section: main-pkg: %dir %{_libdir}/girepository-%{majorminor}/ devel-pkg: %dir %{_datadir}/gir-%{majorminor}/

- Requires correct, justified where necessary. See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Explicit_Requires

Requires: pkgconfig Requires: pkgconfig(gstreamer-1.0) Requires: pkgconfig(gstreamer-plugins-base-1.0)

---> Those are obsolete and unneccassarily doubled Requires. Please refer to the explanation Michael provided.

Requires: gstreamer1-devel%{?_isa} >= %{version} Requires: gstreamer1-plugins-base-devel%{?_isa} >= %{version} Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release}

---> Those Requires are the ones, which are really needed.

- %check is present and all tests pass. See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Test_Suites

---> The package provides the possibility to run a test-suite by invoking `make test`, so you should run the test within %check-section.

Remarks about "good practice": ==============================

- Use of `make install DESTDIR=$RPM_BUILD_ROOT`

---> There is "%make_install"-macro doing pretty the same and may be more fail-safe, if things however are changing between diffent releases.

- Running autoreconf.

---> Simpy using `autoreconf -f` is a bit too less. If there is a real need for running this, using `autoreconf -fiv` is quite more common.

- No auto-documentation is generated during build.

---> It is good practice to build the automagically generated documentation from the sources and have it packaged into a seperate -doc sub-package.

===== MUST items =====

C/C++: [x]: Package does not contain kernel modules. [x]: Package contains no static executables. [x]: Header files in -devel subpackage, if present. [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: "LGPL (v2 or later)", "GPL (v2 or later)", "Unknown or generated". 6 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/besser82/shared/fedora/review/1129677-gstreamer1-rtsp- server/licensecheck.txt

---> there are some files in the tarball which are GPLv2+, but those aren't packaged, so license-tag is fine.

[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [!]: Package must own all directories that it creates. Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/lib64/girepository-1.0, /usr/share/gir-1.0 [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. [!]: 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 40960 bytes in 4 files. [!]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines

---> issues are present.

[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 %doc. [x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. [x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages. [x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines. [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]: 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 do not use a name that already exist [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. [!]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments). [?]: Package functions as described. [x]: Latest version is packaged. [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [x]: Scriptlets must be sane, if used. [-]: 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.

---> See: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=9090080

[!]: %check is present and all tests pass. [x]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files. [x]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file [x]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag [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]: Dist tag is present (not strictly required in GL). [x]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin. [x]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. [x]: Uses parallel make %{?_smp_mflags} macro. [x]: The placement of pkgconfig(.pc) files are correct. [x]: SourceX is a working URL. [x]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified.

===== EXTRA items =====

Generic: [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]: Package should not use obsolete m4 macros [x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM.

Rpmlint ------- Checking: gstreamer1-rtsp-server-1.4.0-2.fc23.x86_64.rpm gstreamer1-rtsp-server-devel-1.4.0-2.fc23.x86_64.rpm gstreamer1-rtsp-server-1.4.0-2.fc23.src.rpm gstreamer1-rtsp-server.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) GStreamer -> G Streamer, Streamer, Steamer gstreamer1-rtsp-server-devel.x86_64: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib gstreamer1-rtsp-server-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation gstreamer1-rtsp-server.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) GStreamer -> G Streamer, Streamer, Steamer 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 4 warnings.

Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- Cannot parse rpmlint output:

Requires -------- gstreamer1-rtsp-server-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /usr/bin/pkg-config gstreamer1-devel(x86-64) gstreamer1-plugins-base-devel(x86-64) gstreamer1-rtsp-server(x86-64) pkgconfig pkgconfig(gstreamer-1.0) pkgconfig(gstreamer-base-1.0) pkgconfig(gstreamer-plugins-base-1.0)

gstreamer1-rtsp-server (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /sbin/ldconfig gstreamer1(x86-64) gstreamer1-plugins-base(x86-64) libc.so.6()(64bit) libgio-2.0.so.0()(64bit) libglib-2.0.so.0()(64bit) libgobject-2.0.so.0()(64bit) libgstapp-1.0.so.0()(64bit) libgstbase-1.0.so.0()(64bit) libgstnet-1.0.so.0()(64bit) libgstreamer-1.0.so.0()(64bit) libgstrtp-1.0.so.0()(64bit) libgstrtsp-1.0.so.0()(64bit) libgstsdp-1.0.so.0()(64bit) libpthread.so.0()(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH)

Provides -------- gstreamer1-rtsp-server-devel: gstreamer1-rtsp-server-devel gstreamer1-rtsp-server-devel(x86-64) pkgconfig(gstreamer-rtsp-server-1.0)

gstreamer1-rtsp-server: gstreamer1-rtsp-server gstreamer1-rtsp-server(x86-64) libgstrtspserver-1.0.so.0()(64bit)

Source checksums ---------------- http://gstreamer.freedesktop.org/src/gst-rtsp/gst-rtsp-server-1.4.0.tar.xz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 800a93ee6de8ca3946fbb2fa3878e41af44e27dde76c9399e30b93ba3e0bffe8 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 800a93ee6de8ca3946fbb2fa3878e41af44e27dde76c9399e30b93ba3e0bffe8

Generated by fedora-review 0.5.2 (63c24cb) last change: 2014-07-14 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -m fedora-rawhide-x86_64 -b 1129677 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Generic, Shell-api, C/C++ Disabled plugins: Java, Python, fonts, SugarActivity, Ocaml, Perl, Haskell, R, PHP, Ruby Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL5, BATCH, DISTTAG

===== Solution =====

NOT approved. Please fix those issues and I'll have another look. As soon as this package is in good shape, I will sponsor you to packager-group.

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1129677

--- Comment #19 from Wim Taymans wtaymans@redhat.com --- Updated spec and SRPM with docs:

SPEC: http://people.freedesktop.org/~wtay/SPECS/gstreamer1-rtsp-server.spec SRPM: http://people.freedesktop.org/~wtay/SRPMS/gstreamer1-rtsp-server-1.4.0-3.fc2...

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1129677

Wim Taymans wtaymans@redhat.com changed:

What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |CLOSED Resolution|--- |DUPLICATE Last Closed| |2015-07-02 10:27:34

--- Comment #21 from Wim Taymans wtaymans@redhat.com --- Marking as duplicate because of updated spec file.

*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 1238755 ***