[Bug 625602] Review Request:libbluray - Library to access Blu-Ray disks for video playback

[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.


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=625602

--- Comment #10 from Xavier Bachelot <xavier at bachelot.org> 2010-10-21 05:20:34 EDT ---
(In reply to comment #9)

> [  ?   ] MUST: rpmlint must be run on every package
> $ rpmlint RPMS/x86_64/libbluray-*
> ~/RPMS/SRPMS/libbluray-0.1-0.1.20100819.fc13.src.rpm 
> libbluray.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US bluray -> blurry,
> blurt, blurb
> libbluray.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US embeddable ->
> embedding, embedded, shreddable
> libbluray.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US mplayer -> player, m
> player, mp layer
> libbluray.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US vlc -> vac, voc, Vlad
> libbluray-debuginfo.x86_64: E: non-standard-dir-perm
> /usr/src/debug/libbluray-20100819 0775L
> libbluray-debuginfo.x86_64: E: non-standard-dir-perm /usr/lib/debug 0775L
> libbluray-debuginfo.x86_64: E: non-standard-dir-perm
> /usr/src/debug/libbluray-20100819/src/libbluray/bdj/native 0775L
> libbluray-debuginfo.x86_64: E: non-standard-dir-perm
> /usr/src/debug/libbluray-20100819/src/libbluray/bdnav 0775L
> libbluray-debuginfo.x86_64: E: non-standard-dir-perm
> /usr/src/debug/libbluray-20100819/src/libbluray/hdmv 0775L
> libbluray-debuginfo.x86_64: E: non-standard-dir-perm
> /usr/src/debug/libbluray-20100819/src/libbluray/decoders 0775L
> libbluray-debuginfo.x86_64: E: non-standard-dir-perm
> /usr/src/debug/libbluray-20100819/src/util 0775L
> libbluray-debuginfo.x86_64: E: non-standard-dir-perm
> /usr/src/debug/libbluray-20100819/src/libbluray 0775L
> libbluray-debuginfo.x86_64: E: non-standard-dir-perm
> /usr/src/debug/libbluray-20100819/src/libbluray/bdj 0775L
> libbluray-debuginfo.x86_64: E: non-standard-dir-perm
> /usr/src/debug/libbluray-20100819/src/file 0775L
> libbluray.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US bluray -> blurry, blurt,
> blurb
> libbluray.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US embeddable -> embedding,
> embedded, shreddable
> libbluray.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US mplayer -> player, m
> player, mp layer
> libbluray.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US vlc -> vac, voc, Vlad
> libbluray.src:14: W: macro-in-comment %Y
> libbluray.src:14: W: macro-in-comment %m
> libbluray.src:14: W: macro-in-comment %d
> libbluray.src:14: W: macro-in-comment %Y
> libbluray.src:14: W: macro-in-comment %m
> libbluray.src:14: W: macro-in-comment %d
> libbluray.src: W: invalid-url Source0: libbluray-20100819.tar.bz2
> 4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 10 errors, 15 warnings.
> 
>  Can you look into the debuginfo errors? not sure if they need to be
>  fixed or not.  Regarding the macros-in-comment warning, can probably
>  ignore that, as well the spelling-error's.
>
I'll look into the perms on the debuginfo, but this is likely coming from the
tarball generation.

> [  ?   ] MUST: The sources used to build the package must match the upstream 
>          source, as provided in the spec URL. Reviewers should use md5sum for 
>          this task. If no upstream URL can be specified for this package, 
>          please see the Source URL Guidelines for how to deal with this.
>   Can't test the MD5 checksums because the git command will check out
>   a different version of the code than the one uploaded in the SRPM,
>   unless the git command in the spec uses the same date as
>   %{tarball_date}.  Make sure that %{tarball_date} is adjusted
>   correctly at the time of checkin.
>
I will rework this part to use the commit hash rather than the date. I'll also
fix the release tag to include the commit hash (at least the start of it), as
per the guideline on pre-releases.

> [  ?   ] MUST: Static libraries must be in a -static package.
>   Seems that generating a static package is optional, is this intentional?
>
Yes, this is intentional. Static libs are only needed to build some of the
small test programs that are included (but not built nor installed by default
Makefile).

> [  x   ] SHOULD: The reviewer should test that the package functions as
>          described. A package should not segfault instead of running, for
>          example.
>   xbmc (from RPM Fusion) correctly links against libbluray, don't have
>   discs to test, unfortunately.
> 
You can probably test with the BD iso from the link in comment #3.


Thanks a lot for the review.

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are on the CC list for the bug.