Note: This is a public test instance of Red Hat Bugzilla. The data contained within is a snapshot of the live data so any changes you make will not be reflected in the production Bugzilla. Email is disabled so feel free to test any aspect of the site that you want. File any problems you find or give feedback at bugzilla.redhat.com.
Bug 179904
Summary: | Review Request: icecast | ||
---|---|---|---|
Product: | [Fedora] Fedora | Reporter: | Andreas Thienemann <andreas> |
Component: | Package Review | Assignee: | Thorsten Leemhuis (ignored mailbox) <bugzilla-sink> |
Status: | CLOSED NEXTRELEASE | QA Contact: | Fedora Package Reviews List <fedora-package-review> |
Severity: | medium | Docs Contact: | |
Priority: | medium | ||
Version: | rawhide | CC: | besser82, holbrookbw, matt_domsch |
Target Milestone: | --- | Flags: | kevin:
fedora-cvs+
|
Target Release: | --- | ||
Hardware: | All | ||
OS: | Linux | ||
Whiteboard: | |||
Fixed In Version: | Doc Type: | Bug Fix | |
Doc Text: | Story Points: | --- | |
Clone Of: | Environment: | ||
Last Closed: | 2006-02-16 07:34:06 UTC | Type: | --- |
Regression: | --- | Mount Type: | --- |
Documentation: | --- | CRM: | |
Verified Versions: | Category: | --- | |
oVirt Team: | --- | RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host: | |
Cloudforms Team: | --- | Target Upstream Version: | |
Embargoed: | |||
Bug Depends On: | |||
Bug Blocks: | 163779 |
Description
Andreas Thienemann
2006-02-03 19:49:51 UTC
Do you plan to package ices also? I went down this path in November, using the copy of icecast in the mf repository, and building new ices, which needed new libshout (older libshout was in FC4 Extras already). There was concensus that upgrading libshout for FC4 wasn't a viable option, so it was either wait for FC5, or do a libshout21 package for FC4 that didn't conflict with libshout. And that's where I stopped... http://domsch.com/linux/fedora/extras/ had my packages for ices and libshout, if you're interested. Thanks, Matt I do have a local ices package. That could be cleaned up and included in extras. However, if libshout is too old, we should probably skip that, and just wait for FC5, which should be round to corner. I have submitted a bug requesting libshout be updated in devel for FE5, bugID 181523. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=181523 [[ This review is only for icecast. ices will be considered later pending the upgrade of libshout to 2.x ]] I assume you know why you specified: BuildRequires: automake16 ...but it's not obvious Now onto the checklist... rpmlint's only complaint: W: icecast strange-permission icecast.init 0755 But init scripts need to be executable, so rpmlint is retarded naming guidelines: OK name matches base package: OK specfile matches base package: OK packaging guidelines: OK GPL License: OK COPYING file matches (and included in %doc): OK legible: OK md5: OK 2d80a249fa8529f82d018c6216108ea8 SOURCES/icecast-2.3.1.tar.gz 2d80a249fa8529f82d018c6216108ea8 icecast-2.3.1.tar.gz successful build: i386=OK ppc=OK x64=UNKNOWN ( Nothing to try it on :-/ ) BuildRequires: OK ownership/permissions: OK no duplicate %files: OK %clean: OK consistent macros: OK IMO, APPROVED! Thanks for the review. I removed the Require for automake16. That was needed back when the package had to be built from CVS, as no release existed and automake had to run first. At that time, automake 1.6 was needed to successfully create the autoconf scripts. As that's not needed anymore, the dependency is moot. Thx for spotting that. ;) Closing bug, icecast is uploaded and sucessfully built. FYI: It does build on x86. ;) (In reply to comment #4) > rpmlint's only complaint: > W: icecast strange-permission icecast.init 0755 > > But init scripts need to be executable, so rpmlint is retarded Actually it's not retarded. It's complaining about the permissions of icecast.init in the SRPM, and it doesn't need to be executable there because the initscript is installed with the correct permissions regardless of the permissions in the SRPM: install -D -m 755 %{SOURCE2} %{buildroot}%{_initrddir}/icecast (In reply to comment #4) > IMO, APPROVED! Please change the blocker bug from FE-NEW or FE-REVIEW to FE-ACCEPT when approving a package. Otherwise you'll get a special mention at http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Extras/PackageStatus ;-) I'll be sure to do that in the future: #1 - This was my first review, so the "APPROVED" was more of a personal suggestion than a final approval, and I didn't know if a plain-ol' reviewer could change it to accept or if a sponsor had to do that #2 - I assumed I didn't have the appropriate bugzilla permissions (In reply to comment #8) > #1 - This was my first review, so the "APPROVED" was more of a personal > suggestion than a final approval, and I didn't know if a plain-ol' reviewer > could change it to accept or if a sponsor had to do that Whoapsi. The review guidelines at http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/ReviewGuidelines state: "A Reviewer is defined as the person who chooses to review a package. For the sake of clarity, one person takes ownership of the review. Other people are encouraged to comment on the review as well, either in the bug or on the mailing list. The primary Reviewer can be any current package owner, unless the Contributor is a first timer." Thus in general, any FE-contributor can review packages. > #2 - I assumed I didn't have the appropriate bugzilla permissions You do not need special permissions for that. It's just a regular tracker, everyone can change that. regards, andreas I want to build to epel7. ##### Package Change Request ====================== Package Name: icecast New Branches: epel7 Owners: besser82 ixs InitialCC: ppisar Git done (by process-git-requests). |