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 205929
Summary: | Review Request: libfreebob - FreeBoB firewire audio driver library | ||
---|---|---|---|
Product: | [Fedora] Fedora | Reporter: | Anthony Green <green> |
Component: | Package Review | Assignee: | Kevin Fenzi <kevin> |
Status: | CLOSED NEXTRELEASE | QA Contact: | Fedora Package Reviews List <fedora-package-review> |
Severity: | medium | Docs Contact: | |
Priority: | medium | ||
Version: | rawhide | CC: | vedran |
Target Milestone: | --- | ||
Target Release: | --- | ||
Hardware: | All | ||
OS: | Linux | ||
Whiteboard: | |||
Fixed In Version: | Doc Type: | Bug Fix | |
Doc Text: | Story Points: | --- | |
Clone Of: | Environment: | ||
Last Closed: | 2006-10-21 21:09:14 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: | 205928 | ||
Bug Blocks: | 163779 |
Description
Anthony Green
2006-09-10 13:19:15 UTC
I'm glad this is in process of getting included in Extras finally. I also own a PreSonus FireBox, great card :) I have been providing FreeBoB packages along with JACK and relevant libs for FC5 for a while. They are here: http://www.ffri.hr/~vmiletic/linux/fedora/ You say you bumped libavc1394. It also needs libiec61883 1.1.0, afaik. I also packaged svn version of libraw1394, as suggested on FreeBoB page. And last, but not the least: do you also plan to add FireWire soundcard detection support to system-config-soundcard at some point? (In reply to comment #1) > I'm glad this is in process of getting included in Extras finally. I also own a > PreSonus FireBox, great card :) > > I have been providing FreeBoB packages along with JACK and relevant libs for > FC5 for a while. They are here: http://www.ffri.hr/~vmiletic/linux/fedora/ Oh, cool. I'll look at your package. BTW, contributing to Extras is pretty straight forward for anybody to do. > You say you bumped libavc1394. Yes, I got the maintainer to push a newer version into FC. > It also needs libiec61883 1.1.0, afaik. I also > packaged svn version of libraw1394, as suggested on FreeBoB page. When I asked about this I was told that it wasn't all that important, and I could just tweak the configury to require the older version we have in FC. > And last, but not the least: do you also plan to add FireWire soundcard > detection support to system-config-soundcard at some point? I wasn't planning on it. My understanding is that there's some upheaval in the works for audio in Fedora (see PulseAudio). Whatever is done, should probably be done in the context of PulseAudio. Several comments here. Is a svn release post- or pre- 1.0? If it pre- I think you should use release tag like 0.1.%{date}%{?dist}. For the post-like the release changed to 1.%{date}%{?dist}. Why do you not write '%{_includedir}/*' instead of '%{_prefix}/include/*'? (In reply to comment #3) > Several comments here. > > Is a svn release post- or pre- 1.0? > If it pre- I think you should use release tag like 0.1.%{date}%{?dist}. > For the post-like the release changed to 1.%{date}%{?dist}. It _is_ 1.0. They just didn't have a tarball available when it was released. It looks like they finally made one just a few days ago. I'll update the package to use this tarball. > > Why do you not write '%{_includedir}/*' instead of '%{_prefix}/include/*'? > I'll change that. Thanks Update bits here: Spec URL: http://people.redhat.com/green/FE/devel/libfreebob.spec SRPM URL: http://people.redhat.com/green/FE/devel/libfreebob-1.0.0-2.src.rpm I would be happy to review this. Look for a full review in a little while. OK - Package meets naming and packaging guidelines OK - Spec file matches base package name. OK - Spec has consistant macro usage. OK - Meets Packaging Guidelines. OK - License (GPL) OK - License field in spec matches OK - License file included in package OK - Spec in American English OK - Spec is legible. OK - Sources match upstream md5sum: aa550528324a4dfb3cf7c9a90d83c694 libfreebob-1.0.0.tar.bz2 aa550528324a4dfb3cf7c9a90d83c694 libfreebob-1.0.0.tar.bz2.1 OK - BuildRequires correct OK - Package has %defattr and permissions on files is good. OK - Package has a correct %clean section. OK - Package has correct buildroot OK - Package is code or permissible content. OK - Packages %doc files don't affect runtime. OK - Headers/static libs in -devel subpackage. OK - Spec has needed ldconfig in post and postun OK - .pc files in -devel subpackage/requires pkgconfig OK - .so files in -devel subpackage. OK - -devel package Requires: %{name} = %{version}-%{release} OK - .la files are removed. OK - Package compiles and builds on at least one arch. See below - Package has no duplicate files in %files. OK - Package owns all the directories it creates. OK - Package doesn't own any directories other packages own. See below - No rpmlint output. OK - final provides and requires are sane: SHOULD Items: OK - Should build in mock. i386/x86_64 - Should build on all supported archs OK - Should have dist tag OK - Should package latest version Issues: 1. You seem to be including the docs in both the main package and the -devel package. Perhaps just have them in the main package files? 2. rpmlint says: W: libfreebob-devel summary-ended-with-dot Libraries, includes etc to develop with libfreebob. Might remove the trailing . to make rpmlint happy. ;) (In reply to comment #7) > Issues: > > 1. You seem to be including the docs in both the main package > and the -devel package. Perhaps just have them in the main package > files? > > 2. rpmlint says: > > W: libfreebob-devel summary-ended-with-dot Libraries, includes etc to develop > with libfreebob. > > Might remove the trailing . to make rpmlint happy. ;) Fixed and fixed. Thanks for working on this. New bits here: Spec URL: http://people.redhat.com/green/FE/devel/libfreebob.spec SRPM URL: http://people.redhat.com/green/FE/devel/libfreebob-1.0.0-3.src.rpm Approved? Yeah, I don't see any further issues, so this package is APPROVED. Don't forget to close this NEXTRELEASE once it's been imported and built. Also, consider doing a review of another waiting package to help spread out the reviewing load. Thanks. |