https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2267321
Bug ID: 2267321 Summary: Review Request: rtmpdump - Toolkit for RTMP streams Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Hardware: All OS: Linux Status: NEW Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nobody@fedoraproject.org Reporter: dominik@greysector.net QA Contact: extras-qa@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Target Milestone: --- Classification: Fedora
Spec URL: https://rathann.fedorapeople.org/review/rtmpdump/rtmpdump.spec SRPM URL: https://rathann.fedorapeople.org/review/rtmpdump/rtmpdump-2.4-25.20240228git... Description: rtmpdump is a toolkit for RTMP streams. All forms of RTMP are supported, including rtmp://, rtmpt://, rtmpe://, rtmpte://, and rtmps://.
Fedora Account System Username: rathann
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2267321
Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski dominik@greysector.net changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Doc Type|--- |If docs needed, set a value Blocks| |2218117 (MultimediaSIG)
Referenced Bugs:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2218117 [Bug 2218117] Tracker for multimedia-sig
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2267321
Fedora Review Service fedora-review-bot@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- URL| |https://rtmpdump.mplayerhq. | |hu/
--- Comment #1 from Fedora Review Service fedora-review-bot@fedoraproject.org --- Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/7095301 (succeeded)
Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-rev...
Please take a look if any issues were found.
--- This comment was created by the fedora-review-service https://github.com/FrostyX/fedora-review-service
If you want to trigger a new Copr build, add a comment containing new Spec and SRPM URLs or [fedora-review-service-build] string.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2267321
Neal Gompa ngompa13@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |ngompa13@gmail.com
--- Comment #2 from Neal Gompa ngompa13@gmail.com ---
Version: 2.4 Release: 25.%{gitdate}git%{shortcommit}%{?dist}
Please switch to snapshot versioning in the Version field.
Cf. https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Versioning/#_snaps...
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2267321
Xavier Bachelot xavier@bachelot.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |xavier@bachelot.org
--- Comment #3 from Xavier Bachelot xavier@bachelot.org ---
%install make CRYPTO=GNUTLS DESTDIR=%{buildroot} prefix=%{_prefix} mandir=%{_mandir} libdir=%{_libdir} install
Please use %make_install and split the long line
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2267321
--- Comment #4 from Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski dominik@greysector.net --- (In reply to Neal Gompa from comment #2)
Version: 2.4 Release: 25.%{gitdate}git%{shortcommit}%{?dist}
Please switch to snapshot versioning in the Version field.
Cf. https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Versioning/ #_snapshots
No. This is a post-release snapshot and upstream has just announced the intention to release 2.6: https://lists.mplayerhq.hu/pipermail/rtmpdump/2024-March/002554.html
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2267321
--- Comment #5 from Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski dominik@greysector.net --- (In reply to Xavier Bachelot from comment #3)
%install make CRYPTO=GNUTLS DESTDIR=%{buildroot} prefix=%{_prefix} mandir=%{_mandir} libdir=%{_libdir} install
Please use %make_install and split the long line
OK. Anything else?
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2267321
--- Comment #6 from Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski dominik@greysector.net --- (In reply to Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski from comment #4)
(In reply to Neal Gompa from comment #2)
Version: 2.4 Release: 25.%{gitdate}git%{shortcommit}%{?dist}
Please switch to snapshot versioning in the Version field.
Cf. https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Versioning/ #_snapshots
No. This is a post-release snapshot and upstream has just announced the intention to release 2.6: https://lists.mplayerhq.hu/pipermail/rtmpdump/2024-March/002554.html
On second thought, OK.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2267321
--- Comment #7 from Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski dominik@greysector.net --- (In reply to Xavier Bachelot from comment #3)
%install make CRYPTO=GNUTLS DESTDIR=%{buildroot} prefix=%{_prefix} mandir=%{_mandir} libdir=%{_libdir} install
Please use %make_install and split the long line
Done. It's no longer so long after the change. :)
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2267321
--- Comment #8 from Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski dominik@greysector.net --- Spec URL: https://rathann.fedorapeople.org/review/rtmpdump/rtmpdump.spec SRPM URL: https://rathann.fedorapeople.org/review/rtmpdump/rtmpdump-2.4%5e20240228gitb...
* Tue Mar 05 2024 Dominik Mierzejewski dominik@greysector.net - 2.4^20240228gitb7c7976-1 - use recommended snapshot versioning - use modern macros
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2267321
--- Comment #9 from Fedora Review Service fedora-review-bot@fedoraproject.org --- Created attachment 2020126 --> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=2020126&action=edit The .spec file difference from Copr build 7095301 to 7106479
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2267321
--- Comment #10 from Fedora Review Service fedora-review-bot@fedoraproject.org --- Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/7106479 (succeeded)
Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-rev...
Please take a look if any issues were found.
--- This comment was created by the fedora-review-service https://github.com/FrostyX/fedora-review-service
If you want to trigger a new Copr build, add a comment containing new Spec and SRPM URLs or [fedora-review-service-build] string.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2267321
--- Comment #11 from Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski dominik@greysector.net --- [fedora-review-service-build]
- ensure Fedora CFLAGS and LDFLAGS are used consistently
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2267321
--- Comment #12 from Fedora Review Service fedora-review-bot@fedoraproject.org --- Created attachment 2020134 --> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=2020134&action=edit The .spec file difference from Copr build 7106479 to 7106653
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2267321
--- Comment #13 from Fedora Review Service fedora-review-bot@fedoraproject.org --- Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/7106653 (succeeded)
Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-rev...
Please take a look if any issues were found.
--- This comment was created by the fedora-review-service https://github.com/FrostyX/fedora-review-service
If you want to trigger a new Copr build, add a comment containing new Spec and SRPM URLs or [fedora-review-service-build] string.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2267321
--- Comment #14 from Xavier Bachelot xavier@bachelot.org --- Maybe missing an explicit BR: make rather than relying on deps ? Otherwise looks good, will try and do a full review asap.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2267321
Keith Diaz richardmeadows1310@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |richardmeadows1310@gmail.co | |m
--- Comment #15 from Keith Diaz richardmeadows1310@gmail.com --- (In reply to Fedora Review Service from comment #13)
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/7106653 (succeeded)
Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora- review-2267321-rtmpdump/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/07106653-rtmpdump/fedora- review/review.txt
Please take a look if any issues were found.
This comment was created by the fedora-review-service https://github.com/FrostyX/fedora-review-service https://fnafgames.io
If you want to trigger a new Copr build, add a comment containing new Spec and SRPM URLs or [fedora-review-service-build] string.
Thanks for the info
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2267321
Fedora Review Service fedora-review-bot@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Keywords| |AutomationTriaged
--- Comment #16 from Fedora Review Service fedora-review-bot@fedoraproject.org --- Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/7158010 (succeeded)
Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-rev...
Please take a look if any issues were found.
--- This comment was created by the fedora-review-service https://github.com/FrostyX/fedora-review-service
If you want to trigger a new Copr build, add a comment containing new Spec and SRPM URLs or [fedora-review-service-build] string.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2267321
--- Comment #17 from Xavier Bachelot xavier@bachelot.org --- Could you please take a look at the following rpmlint warnings ? librtmp.x86_64: W: crypto-policy-non-compliance-gnutls-2 /usr/lib64/librtmp.so.1 gnutls_priority_init librtmp.x86_64: W: crypto-policy-non-compliance-gnutls-1 /usr/lib64/librtmp.so.1 gnutls_priority_set_direct
See https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/CryptoPolicies/
And also : librtmp.x86_64: W: binary-or-shlib-calls-gethostbyname /usr/lib64/librtmp.so.1
Both shall probably at least be notified to upstream.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2267321
--- Comment #18 from Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski dominik@greysector.net --- (In reply to Xavier Bachelot from comment #14)
Maybe missing an explicit BR: make rather than relying on deps ?
Good point, will add when importing.
Otherwise looks good, will try and do a full review asap.
Thanks!
(In reply to Xavier Bachelot from comment #17)
Could you please take a look at the following rpmlint warnings ? librtmp.x86_64: W: crypto-policy-non-compliance-gnutls-2 /usr/lib64/librtmp.so.1 gnutls_priority_init librtmp.x86_64: W: crypto-policy-non-compliance-gnutls-1 /usr/lib64/librtmp.so.1 gnutls_priority_set_direct
See https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/CryptoPolicies/
And also : librtmp.x86_64: W: binary-or-shlib-calls-gethostbyname /usr/lib64/librtmp.so.1
Both shall probably at least be notified to upstream.
They are valid and I sent them upstream. However, I wonder if RTMP even supports IPv6 or if there are specific old crypto requirements at work here.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2267321
Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski dominik@greysector.net changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |CLOSED Resolution|--- |WONTFIX Last Closed| |2024-03-19 14:33:44
--- Comment #19 from Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski dominik@greysector.net --- rtmpdump upstream advice is not to include it in Fedora at all.
Only two RPM Fusion packages depend on rtmpdump: get-flash-videos and qarte.
First is dead (last commit 4 years ago) and the second is specific to one website (arte.tv).
So... probably not worth packaging. Withdrawing review request.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2267321
Soundboard Max soundboardmax.com@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |soundboardmax.com@gmail.com
--- Comment #20 from Soundboard Max soundboardmax.com@gmail.com --- (In reply to Keith Diaz from comment #15)
(In reply to Fedora Review Service from comment #13)
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/7106653 (succeeded)
Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora- review-2267321-rtmpdump/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/07106653-rtmpdump/fedora- review/review.txt
Please take a look if any issues were found.
This comment was created by the fedora-review-service https://github.com/FrostyX/fedora-review-service https://soundboardmax.com/
If you want to trigger a new Copr build, add a comment containing new Spec and SRPM URLs or [fedora-review-service-build] string.
Thanks for the info
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2267321
--- Comment #21 from Fedora Review Service fedora-review-bot@fedoraproject.org --- There seems to be some problem with the following file. SRPM URL: https://rathann.fedorapeople.org/review/rtmpdump/rtmpdump-2.4%5E20240228gitb... Fetching it results in a 404 Not Found error. Please make sure the URL is correct and publicly available.
--- This comment was created by the fedora-review-service https://github.com/FrostyX/fedora-review-service
If you want to trigger a new Copr build, add a comment containing new Spec and SRPM URLs or [fedora-review-service-build] string.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2267321
soundbuttonspro soundbuttonspro.com@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |soundbuttonspro.com@gmail.c | |om
--- Comment #22 from soundbuttonspro soundbuttonspro.com@gmail.com ---
Version: 2.4 Release: 25.%{gitdate}git%{shortcommit}%{?dist}
Please switch to snapshot versioning in the Version field.
This comment was created by the fedora-review-service https://soundbuttonspro.com/ https://github.com/FrostyX/fedora-review-service
If you want to trigger a new Copr build, add a comment containing new Spec and SRPM URLs or [fedora-review-service-build] string.
Thanks for the info
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org