Bug 4852 (gmediarender)

Summary:	Review request: gmediarender - Resource efficient UPnP/DLNA renderer
Product:	Package Reviews	Reporter:	Zamir SUN <sztsian>
Component:	Review Request	Assignee:	RPM Fusion Package Review <rpmfusion-package-review>
Status:	RESOLVED MOVED
Severity:	enhancement	CC:	dominik, rpmfusion-package-review, zebob.m
Priority:	P1
Version:	Current
Hardware:	x86_64
OS:	GNU/Linux
namespace:	free

Description Zamir SUN 2018-04-07 14:50:49 CEST

SRPM URL: https://zsun.fedorapeople.org/pub/pkgs/rpmfusion/gmediarender-0-0.8.20180402git4f221e6.fc27.src.rpm
SPEC URL: https://zsun.fedorapeople.org/pub/pkgs/rpmfusion/gmediarender.spec

Description: Resource efficient UPnP/DLNA renderer
RPMFusion FAS Username: zsun

* Why this package is not eligible to be included in Fedora:
This depends on some codec of gstreammer, which is not accepted in Fedora.

RPMlint error:

gmediarender.src:53: E: hardcoded-library-path in %{_prefix}/lib/firewalld/services

This already follows the guideline so I think this doesn't matter.
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/ScriptletSnippets/Firewalld

Comment 1 Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski 2018-04-07 15:42:02 CEST

Some drive-by comments:

Unnecessary macro:

%global project gmrender-resurrect
%global repo %{project}

Use either project or repo if they're the same.

Requires: gstreamer1-plugins-ugly
Requires: gstreamer1-plugins-bad-free
Requires: gstreamer1-plugins-base
Requires: gstreamer1-plugins-good

Both -good and -bad-free require -base, so it's not necessary to list the latter.

What exactly in -ugly is required? What happens in -ugly is not installed? If only some non-essential function is missing then maybe this is eligible for Fedora after all.

Comment 2 Robert-André Mauchin 2018-04-07 16:35:11 CEST

 - Not needed %defattr(-,root,root,-)

 - The unit file should probably not be using %config(noreplace)

 - I doubt -ugly and -bad are necessary, if we look at the Arch package, they are marked as "optional", thus I don't think this package should be in RPMFusion, but Fedora proper, without these as hard dependencies.

   I don't know if packages from Fedora can add Recommends: to RPMFusion packages, any one knows if it's okay?

 - This package could probably benefit from the new Forge automation: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Forge-hosted_projects_packaging_automation

   Use:

%global forgeurl    https://github.com/hzeller/gmrender-resurrect
%global commit      4f221e6b85abf85957b547436e982d7a501a1718

%forgemeta 

Name:    gmediarender
Version: 0
Release: 0.8%{?dist}
Summary: Resource efficient UPnP/DLNA renderer
License: GPLv2+
URL:     %{forgeurl}
Source:  %{forgesource}


(dist will be computed automatically)

   And in %prep:

%prep
%forgeautosetup
autoreconf -vfi


   The %changelog needs adjustement:

* Sat Apr 07 2018 Zamir SUN <sztsian@gmail.com> - 0-0.8.20180407git4f221e6
- Fix versioning
- Update to upstream head 4f221e6

Please note the snapshot date must be the date the archive is downloaded (or uploaded to fedora/rpmfusion servers) and not the date of the commit, contrary to what it was before believed.

Comment 3 Zamir SUN 2018-04-08 04:29:24 CEST

Thanks for both of your suggestions.

Based on the above suggestions, I'll rebuild without gstreamer1-plugins-ugly and see if Fedora will accept it or not.

Marking a NotReady in tag.

Comment 4 Nicolas Chauvet 2018-04-08 09:44:41 CEST

(In reply to Robert-André Mauchin from comment #2)
[...]
>    I don't know if packages from Fedora can add Recommends: to RPMFusion
> packages, any one knows if it's okay?
It's not okay.
With that said, I don't think it should prevent this package from moving to fedora if it can run as appropriate with fedora only packages.

Comment 5 Zamir SUN 2018-04-11 05:16:14 CEST

Approved in Fedora. So closing this.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1564835