Difference between revisions of "User:Amartinenco"

From CDOT Wiki
Jump to: navigation, search
Line 1: Line 1:
 +
GST-OPENMAX 0.2
 +
 +
My package was reviewed by Ryan Lawrance at https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=879881
 +
and based on the errors found I had to make certain changes.
 +
 +
SRC RPM: https://docs.google.com/open?id=0B0THh1GbRWnAV3RJN3hKbEJLTDQ
 +
 +
BAD: The package must be named according to the Package Naming Guideline.
 +
FIXED: changed the name to gst-openmax-0.10.1
 +
 +
BAD: The package must meet the Packaging Guidelines .
 +
    1.    summary does not provide a concise description of the package
 +
    2.    changelog tag specified twice
 +
    3.    source tag not pointing to upstream source
 +
    4.    upstream documentation missing
 +
    5.    files tag points to a specific libdir
 +
    6.    doc tag does not include all documentation in build
 +
FIXED:
 +
    1. Chaged the summary
 +
    2. Only one changelog tag is being used
 +
    3. Source tag points to the proper source
 +
    4. Added documentation in the %doc
 +
    5. changed to the macro
 +
    6. Added all the documentation to the build
 +
 +
BAD: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the license(s) for the package must be included in %doc.
 +
    •    Not included in doc tag
 +
FIXED: added all the files
 +
 +
 +
BAD:  The sources used to build the package must match the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL. Reviewers should use sha256sum for this task as it is used by the sources file once imported into git. If no upstream URL can be specified for this package, please see the Source URL Guidelines for how to deal with this.
 +
    •    Source does not use an upstream URL
 +
FIXED: Changed to upstream URL
 +
 +
BAD: Static libraries must be in a -static package.
 +
    •    Package only provides libraries
 +
COMMENT: it is not a static library, but a gstreamer plugin
 +
 +
 +
BAD: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it
 +
    ?    Not included in spec file
 +
FIXED: Added COPYING file to the %doc
 +
 +
 +
BAD: The description and summary sections in the package spec file should contain translations for supported Non-English languages, if available.
 +
    •    summary does not provide a concise description of the package
 +
FIXED: Changed the summary
 +
 +
BAD:  The reviewer should test that the package functions as described. A package should not segfault instead of running, for example.
 +
    •    Unable to list codecs per documentation instructions
 +
FIXED: Added aditional file called README.fedora with proper instructions
 +
 +
 +
 +
 
GST-OPENMAX 0.1
 
GST-OPENMAX 0.1
  

Revision as of 16:22, 4 December 2012

GST-OPENMAX 0.2

My package was reviewed by Ryan Lawrance at https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=879881 and based on the errors found I had to make certain changes.

SRC RPM: https://docs.google.com/open?id=0B0THh1GbRWnAV3RJN3hKbEJLTDQ

BAD: The package must be named according to the Package Naming Guideline. FIXED: changed the name to gst-openmax-0.10.1

BAD: The package must meet the Packaging Guidelines . 

   1.    summary does not provide a concise description of the package
   2.    changelog tag specified twice
   3.    source tag not pointing to upstream source
   4.    upstream documentation missing
   5.    files tag points to a specific libdir
   6.    doc tag does not include all documentation in build

FIXED: 

   1. Chaged the summary
   2. Only one changelog tag is being used
   3. Source tag points to the proper source
   4. Added documentation in the %doc
   5. changed to the macro
   6. Added all the documentation to the build

BAD: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the license(s) for the package must be included in %doc. 

   •    Not included in doc tag

FIXED: added all the files


BAD: The sources used to build the package must match the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL. Reviewers should use sha256sum for this task as it is used by the sources file once imported into git. If no upstream URL can be specified for this package, please see the Source URL Guidelines for how to deal with this. 

   •    Source does not use an upstream URL

FIXED: Changed to upstream URL

BAD: Static libraries must be in a -static package. 

   •    Package only provides libraries

COMMENT: it is not a static library, but a gstreamer plugin


BAD: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it 

   ?    Not included in spec file

FIXED: Added COPYING file to the %doc


BAD: The description and summary sections in the package spec file should contain translations for supported Non-English languages, if available. 

   •    summary does not provide a concise description of the package

FIXED: Changed the summary

BAD: The reviewer should test that the package functions as described. A package should not segfault instead of running, for example. 

   •    Unable to list codecs per documentation instructions

FIXED: Added aditional file called README.fedora with proper instructions



GST-OPENMAX 0.1

Source code from the git source tree: https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B0THh1GbRWnAWXRFaFdKX19XVFU/edit
Packaged RPM version 0.1: https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B0THh1GbRWnAUkV6dnQ1VVZESVE/edit
Spec file used to create RPM: https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B0THh1GbRWnAanc2aWFseFY5RkE/edit

Retrieved from "https://wiki.cdot.senecapolytechnic.ca/w/index.php?title=User:Amartinenco&oldid=91808"