| Summary: | Review Request: ffms2 - Wrapper library around libffmpeg | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Product: | Package Reviews | Reporter: | Igor Gnatenko <igor.raits> |
| Component: | Review Request | Assignee: | leigh scott <leigh123linux> |
| Status: | RESOLVED FIXED | ||
| Severity: | normal | CC: | leigh123linux, musuruan, rebus, rpmfusion-package-review |
| Priority: | P5 | Flags: | kwizart:
fedora-review+
|
| Version: | Current | ||
| Hardware: | All | ||
| OS: | GNU/Linux | ||
| namespace: | free | ||
| Bug Depends on: | |||
| Bug Blocks: | 4, 4224, 4256 | ||
|
Description
Igor Gnatenko
2016-08-30 14:11:40 CEST
Please, don't use fedorapeople.org hosting for packages that cannot be accepted in Fedora. (In reply to comment #1) > Please, don't use fedorapeople.org hosting for packages that cannot be accepted > in Fedora. I don't host there package. I don't see problem in redistributing source code of completely free package. It depends on ffmpeg, but there is no patented code inside, so it's totally fine to host srpm there. (In reply to comment #2) > (In reply to comment #1) > > Please, don't use fedorapeople.org hosting for packages that cannot be accepted > > in Fedora. > I don't host there package. > > I don't see problem in redistributing source code of completely free package. > It depends on ffmpeg, but there is no patented code inside, so it's totally > fine to host srpm there. Please read: http://lists.rpmfusion.org/pipermail/rpmfusion-developers/2010-January/006973.html (In reply to comment #3) > (In reply to comment #2) > > (In reply to comment #1) > > > Please, don't use fedorapeople.org hosting for packages that cannot be accepted > > > in Fedora. > > I don't host there package. > > > > I don't see problem in redistributing source code of completely free package. > > It depends on ffmpeg, but there is no patented code inside, so it's totally > > fine to host srpm there. > > Please read: > http://lists.rpmfusion.org/pipermail/rpmfusion-developers/2010-January/006973.html And what should I find there? (In reply to comment #4) > And what should I find there? "fedorapeople is not the answer IMHO, if Fedora does not want to distribute it, we should not be putting it on fedorapeople.org either" (In reply to comment #5) > (In reply to comment #4) > > And what should I find there? > > "fedorapeople is not the answer IMHO, if Fedora does not want to distribute it, > we should not be putting it on fedorapeople.org either" Fedora can redistribute this package, but it needs ffmpeg which we can't redistribute in Fedora. This is different things. Why epoch?
Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{?epoch:%{epoch}:}%{version}-%{release}
(In reply to comment #7) > Why epoch? Because if it will be defined, then it will work properly automatically without adding %{epoch}. %{?epoch} is enough.
(In reply to comment #9) > %{?epoch} is enough. No, it's not because it will not add ":". (In reply to comment #9) > %{?epoch} is enough. Epoch not defined: * %{?epoch} -> * %{?epoch:%{epoch}:} -> Epoch is defined to 1: * %{?epoch} -> 1 * %{?epoch:%{epoch}:} -> 1: *** Bug 4255 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. *** It doesn't compile on rawhide mock
+ /usr/bin/make -O -j8
/bin/sh ./libtool --tag=CXX --mode=compile g++ -DHAVE_CONFIG_H -I. -I./src/config -I. -I./include -I./src/config -D_FILE_OFFSET_BITS=64 -DFFMS_EXPORTS -D__STDC_CONSTANT_MACROS -I/usr/include/ffmpeg -include config.h -std=c++11 -fvisibility=hidden -O2 -g -pipe -Wall -Werror=format-security -Wp,-D_FORTIFY_SOURCE=2 -fexceptions -fstack-protector-strong --param=ssp-buffer-size=4 -grecord-gcc-switches -specs=/usr/lib/rpm/redhat/redhat-hardened-cc1 -m64 -mtune=generic -c -o src/core/filehandle.lo src/core/filehandle.cpp
libtool: compile: g++ -DHAVE_CONFIG_H -I. -I./src/config -I. -I./include -I./src/config -D_FILE_OFFSET_BITS=64 -DFFMS_EXPORTS -D__STDC_CONSTANT_MACROS -I/usr/include/ffmpeg -include config.h -std=c++11 -fvisibility=hidden -O2 -g -pipe -Wall -Werror=format-security -Wp,-D_FORTIFY_SOURCE=2 -fexceptions -fstack-protector-strong --param=ssp-buffer-size=4 -grecord-gcc-switches -specs=/usr/lib/rpm/redhat/redhat-hardened-cc1 -m64 -mtune=generic -c src/core/filehandle.cpp -fPIC -DPIC -o src/core/.libs/filehandle.o
In file included from /usr/include/c++/6.2.1/cmath:45:0,
from /usr/include/c++/6.2.1/math.h:36,
from /usr/include/ffmpeg/libavutil/common.h:36,
from /usr/include/ffmpeg/libavutil/avutil.h:288,
from /usr/include/ffmpeg/libavutil/mem.h:34,
from src/core/utils.h:27,
from src/core/filehandle.cpp:23:
/usr/include/math.h:346:1: error: template with C linkage
template <class __T> inline bool
^~~~~~~~
make: *** [Makefile:699: src/core/filehandle.lo] Error 1
make: *** Waiting for unfinished jobs....
Package Approved. Please fix this issue when you import AutoTools: Obsoleted m4s found ------------------------------ AC_PROG_LIBTOOL found in: ffms2-2.22/configure.ac:49 ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed Issues: ======= - All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines. Note: These BR are not needed: gcc See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Exceptions_2 ===== 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]: ldconfig called in %post and %postun if required. [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: "MIT/X11 (BSD like)", "*No copyright* MIT/X11 (BSD like)", "Unknown or generated". 25 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/leigh/4225-ffms2/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 163840 bytes in 5 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 must own all directories that it creates. [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 ffms2-debuginfo [-]: Package functions as described. [!]: Latest version is packaged. 2.2.3 is available [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. [?]: 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: [!]: Package should not use obsolete m4 macros Note: Some obsoleted macros found, see the attachment. See: https://fedorahosted.org/FedoraReview/wiki/AutoTool [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: ffms2-2.22-3.fc24.x86_64.rpm ffms2-devel-2.22-3.fc24.x86_64.rpm ffms2-debuginfo-2.22-3.fc24.x86_64.rpm ffms2-2.22-3.fc24.src.rpm ffms2.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) libffmpeg -> LibreOffice ffms2.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US libffmpeg -> LibreOffice ffms2.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US libavformat -> malformation ffms2.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary ffmsindex ffms2-devel.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US libffmpeg -> LibreOffice ffms2-devel.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US libavformat -> malformation ffms2-devel.x86_64: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib ffms2.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) libffmpeg -> LibreOffice ffms2.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US libffmpeg -> LibreOffice ffms2.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US libavformat -> malformation 4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 10 warnings. Rpmlint (debuginfo) ------------------- Checking: ffms2-debuginfo-2.22-3.fc24.x86_64.rpm 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- sh: /usr/bin/python: No such file or directory ffms2-devel.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US libffmpeg -> LibreOffice ffms2-devel.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US libavformat -> malformation ffms2-devel.x86_64: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib ffms2.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) libffmpeg -> LibreOffice ffms2.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US libffmpeg -> LibreOffice ffms2.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US libavformat -> malformation ffms2.x86_64: W: unused-direct-shlib-dependency /usr/lib64/libffms2.so.4.0.0 /lib64/libm.so.6 ffms2.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary ffmsindex 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 8 warnings. Requires -------- ffms2-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /usr/bin/pkg-config ffms2(x86-64) libffms2.so.4()(64bit) pkgconfig(libavcodec) pkgconfig(libavformat) pkgconfig(libavresample) pkgconfig(libavutil) pkgconfig(libswscale) ffms2-debuginfo (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): ffms2 (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /sbin/ldconfig libavcodec.so.57()(64bit) libavcodec.so.57(LIBAVCODEC_57)(64bit) libavformat.so.57()(64bit) libavformat.so.57(LIBAVFORMAT_57)(64bit) libavresample.so.3()(64bit) libavresample.so.3(LIBAVRESAMPLE_3)(64bit) libavutil.so.55()(64bit) libavutil.so.55(LIBAVUTIL_55)(64bit) libc.so.6()(64bit) libffms2.so.4()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.0)(64bit) libm.so.6()(64bit) libstdc++.so.6()(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3)(64bit) libswscale.so.4()(64bit) libswscale.so.4(LIBSWSCALE_4)(64bit) libz.so.1()(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH) Provides -------- ffms2-devel: ffms2-devel ffms2-devel(x86-64) pkgconfig(ffms2) ffms2-debuginfo: ffms2-debuginfo ffms2-debuginfo(x86-64) ffms2: ffms2 ffms2(x86-64) libffms2.so.4()(64bit) Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/FFMS/ffms2/archive/2.22/ffms2-2.22.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 7c5202fa2e49186fb3bb815e5b12ca71f05ec09cb707ffd9465852e21a06fdad CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 7c5202fa2e49186fb3bb815e5b12ca71f05ec09cb707ffd9465852e21a06fdad AutoTools: Obsoleted m4s found ------------------------------ AC_PROG_LIBTOOL found in: ffms2-2.22/configure.ac:49 Generated by fedora-review 0.6.1 (f03e4e7) last change: 2016-05-02 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -m fedora-24-x86_64-rpmfusion_free --other-bz https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org -b 4225 Buildroot used: fedora-24-x86_64 Active plugins: Generic, Shell-api, C/C++ Disabled plugins: Java, Python, fonts, SugarActivity, Ocaml, Perl, Haskell, R, PHP Disabled flags: EXARCH, DISTTAG, EPEL5, BATCH, EPEL6 This package git module was not requested, is there a reason ? seems like the package module creation was done with the new process. Please proceed with import. |