[Bug 193224] Review Request: streamer

[bugzilla at redhat.com]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.

Summary: Review Request: streamer


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=193224


paul at city-fan.org changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Status|CLOSED                      |NEW
           Keywords|                            |Reopened
         Resolution|NOTABUG                     |




------- Additional Comments From paul at city-fan.org  2006-05-29 08:07 EST -------
I had a quick look at this package, and spotted these things:

1. Lose the "Provides: streamer-1.1-2" header. RPM will generate an appropriate
Provides: entry itself.

2. Wrap the %description at 80 columns.

3. Try to wrap lomg lines in %install by using backslashes and continuation
lines to make the spec file more readable.

4. The package does not honor %{optflags}. You can fix this by adding the
following command to the end of %prep:

sed -i -e 's/^\(CFLAGS *:= \).*/\1%{optflags}/' Makefile

5. Include some documentation. README and ChangeLog seem appropriate.

6. If you are this package's upstream, bundle a copy of the GPL with the tarball
and include it as %doc in the RPM package. If you're not upstream yourself, ask
whoever is to include a copy of the GPL.

7. Add missing buildreqs ncurses-devel libXt-devel libjpeg-devel libpng-devel
(test-build your packages in mock to find missing buildreqs)

8. Lose the "-s" from the install commands. Stripping binaries is done
automatically by rpmbuild and if you do it yourself you'll get useless debuginfo
packages.

9. Your package needs to own directory %{_libdir}/streamer/; otherwise, it will
left on the system when the package is removed.

(In reply to comment #3)
> i am already waiting for package
> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=193216 approval and
> streamer is required to be installed first before using qcwebcam package.

This is why I added bug 193216 to the list of bugs that this one blocks. You
need to get this package into Extras before qcwebcam because that package
depends on this one.

> I need sponsor for cvs access. What steps shoul i follow?

See http://www.fedoraproject.org/wiki/Extras/Contributors

> how can i add he blocker bug of FE-NEEDSPONSOR to this review request??

It appears you have figured that out for yourself. I have reponed this bug
though, which you appear to have closed by mistake.


-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact.