Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=189313
Summary: Review Request: liblrdf Product: Fedora Extras Version: devel Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: normal Priority: normal Component: Package Review AssignedTo: bugzilla-sink@leemhuis.info ReportedBy: green@redhat.com QAContact: fedora-package-review@redhat.com
Spec URL: http://people.redhat.com/green/FE/FC5/liblrdf.spec SRPM URL: http://people.redhat.com/green/FE/FC5/liblrdf-0.4.0-2.src.rpm Description: This is a library to make it easy to manipulate RDF files describing LADSPA plugins.
Ardour is dependent on this package. The spec file is based on a old planet ccrma spec file.
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: liblrdf
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=189313
green@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- OtherBugsDependingO| |189315 nThis| |
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: liblrdf
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=189313
green@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- BugsThisDependsOn| |189309
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: liblrdf
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=189313
green@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- OtherBugsDependingO| |177841 nThis| |
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: liblrdf
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=189313
------- Additional Comments From green@redhat.com 2006-04-23 07:18 EST ------- I've just updates the bits based on recent experience and expected feedback...
Spec URL: http://people.redhat.com/green/FE/FC5/liblrdf.spec SRPM URL: http://people.redhat.com/green/FE/FC5/liblrdf-0.4.0-3.src.rpm
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: liblrdf
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=189313
bugs.michael@gmx.net changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |bugs.michael@gmx.net
------- Additional Comments From bugs.michael@gmx.net 2006-04-23 07:41 EST ------- * Until raptor-devel will be good, this one BuildRequires: libxslt-devel
* Run rpmlint on the binary rpms:
Lots of output, in particular because the included "examples" %doc directory contains arch-dependent files (it MUST NOT), including unfinished libtool based executables in the hidden .libs directory, object files, and dependency meta data files in the hidden .deps directory.
* rpmqfcheck.pl /home/qa/tmp/rpm/RPMS/liblrdf-0.4.0-3.i386.rpm Orphaned dir: /usr/share/ladspa Orphaned dir: /usr/share/ladspa/rdf
* Source0 would be directly downloadable if in the form: http://download.sourceforge.net/... or http://dl.sf.net/...
* Static libraries should not be included.
* Noticable compiler warnings:
showdefaults.c:42: warning: format '%d' expects type 'int', but argument 3 has type 'long unsigned int' setting_test.c:43: warning: format '%d' expects type 'int', but argument 3 has type 'long unsigned int' lrdf.c:596: warning: pointer targets in passing argument 1 of 'raptor_new_uri' differ in signedness lrdf.c:597: warning: pointer targets in passing argument 1 of 'raptor_new_uri' differ in signedness
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: liblrdf
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=189313
------- Additional Comments From green@redhat.com 2006-04-23 08:31 EST ------- Thanks for looking at this. Updated bits here:
Spec URL: http://people.redhat.com/green/FE/FC5/liblrdf.spec SRPM URL: http://people.redhat.com/green/FE/FC5/liblrdf-0.4.0-4.src.rpm
(In reply to comment #2)
- Until raptor-devel will be good, this one BuildRequires: libxslt-devel
I've submitted a fixed raptor spec file.
- Run rpmlint on the binary rpms:
Lots of output, in particular because the included "examples" %doc directory contains arch-dependent files (it MUST NOT), including unfinished libtool based executables in the hidden .libs directory, object files, and dependency meta data files in the hidden .deps directory.
I've removed examples from the doc list, and added a README.fedora file to point people at the SRPM for example source code.
- rpmqfcheck.pl /home/qa/tmp/rpm/RPMS/liblrdf-0.4.0-3.i386.rpm
Orphaned dir: /usr/share/ladspa Orphaned dir: /usr/share/ladspa/rdf
I'm not sure who should own these directories. Perhaps this package should own /usr/share/ladspa/rdf, and ladspa could own /usr/share/ladspa - although there's no real need to install the ladspa package when using ladspa plugins. Suggestions?
- Source0 would be directly downloadable if in the form:
Fixed.
- Static libraries should not be included.
Fixed. Configured with --disable-static.
- Noticable compiler warnings:
showdefaults.c:42: warning: format '%d' expects type 'int', but argument 3 has type 'long unsigned int' setting_test.c:43: warning: format '%d' expects type 'int', but argument 3 has type 'long unsigned int'
This is from the example directory, which is ignored now.
lrdf.c:596: warning: pointer targets in passing argument 1 of 'raptor_new_uri' differ in signedness lrdf.c:597: warning: pointer targets in passing argument 1 of 'raptor_new_uri' differ in signedness
I will push this upstream rather than try to handle it here. It's a signed-vs-unsigned char thing.
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: liblrdf
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=189313
bugs.michael@gmx.net changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- OtherBugsDependingO|177841 | nThis| |
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: liblrdf
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=189313
------- Additional Comments From green@redhat.com 2006-04-24 07:10 EST ------- I've cleaned up the spec file based raptor changes. Updated bits here...
Spec URL: http://people.redhat.com/green/FE/FC5/liblrdf.spec SRPM URL: http://people.redhat.com/green/FE/FC5/liblrdf-0.4.0-5.src.rpm
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: liblrdf
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=189313
bugs.michael@gmx.net changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|bugzilla-sink@leemhuis.info |bugs.michael@gmx.net CC|bugs.michael@gmx.net | OtherBugsDependingO|163776 |163778 nThis| |
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: liblrdf
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=189313
------- Additional Comments From bugs.michael@gmx.net 2006-04-26 18:52 EST -------
Perhaps this package should own /usr/share/ladspa/rdf, and ladspa could own /usr/share/ladspa
Common practice among packagers seems to be to _either_ require a package which owns the directories _or_ to own the directories yourself.
Here, however, the file is installed from within the "examples" directory for rdf_uri load tests and is not required at run-time. At build-time it is not adjusted to be in sync with the plugins found in the "ladspa" package. In liblrdf there's also no run-time dependency on the LADSPA_RDF_PATH /usr/share/ladspa/rdf
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: liblrdf
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=189313
Bug 189313 depends on bug 189309, which changed state.
Bug 189309 Summary: Review Request: raptor https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=189309
What |Old Value |New Value ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Resolution| |NEXTRELEASE Status|ASSIGNED |CLOSED
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: liblrdf
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=189313
green@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- BugsThisDependsOn| |190040
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: liblrdf
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=189313
green@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- BugsThisDependsOn|190040 | OtherBugsDependingO| |190040 nThis| |
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: liblrdf
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=189313
bugs.michael@gmx.net changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- OtherBugsDependingO|163778 |163779 nThis| |
------- Additional Comments From bugs.michael@gmx.net 2006-05-13 17:27 EST ------- Confirming bottom of comment 5. /usr/share/ladspa/rdf/ladspa.rdfs is a useless example for a classification of ladspa plugins. Inside Hydrogen it is recognised without any of the classified ladspa plugins being available. The file should not be included in the package. (Do we have any ladspa package in the queue which comes with an rdf file?)
APPROVED if you fix that remaining issue.
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: liblrdf
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=189313
green@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |CLOSED Resolution| |NEXTRELEASE
------- Additional Comments From green@redhat.com 2006-05-13 23:32 EST ------- (In reply to comment #6)
(Do we have any ladspa package in the queue which comes with an rdf file?)
swh-plugins does, and it's already in Extras. I've also submitted CAPS, which does as well. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=190045
APPROVED if you fix that remaining issue.
Done. Thanks!
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: liblrdf
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=189313
bugzilla@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Severity|normal |medium Priority|normal |medium Product|Fedora Extras |Fedora
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: liblrdf
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=189313
bugzilla@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Version|devel |rawhide
lkundrak@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |lkundrak@redhat.com
------- Additional Comments From lkundrak@redhat.com 2008-04-11 17:07 EST ------- I'd be very thiankful if you could request and maintain a EPEL-5 branch for this package. In case you don't want or can't do that, let me know and I'll do that.
Thanks!
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: liblrdf
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=189313
lkundrak@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag| |fedora-cvs?
------- Additional Comments From lkundrak@redhat.com 2008-04-14 13:10 EST ------- Maintainer is OK with the change as per previous conversation with him.
Package Change Request ====================== Package Name: liblrdf New Branches: EL-5 Owners for new branch: green,lkundrak cvsextras commits for new branch: yes
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: liblrdf
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=189313
kevin@tummy.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag|fedora-cvs? |fedora-cvs+
------- Additional Comments From kevin@tummy.com 2008-04-14 15:36 EST ------- cvs done.
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org