[Bug 2302351] Review Request: mpv-mpris - MPRIS plugin for mpv

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2302351

Peter Lemenkov <lemenkov@xxxxxxxxx> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
              Flags|fedora-review?              |fedora-review+



--- Comment #5 from Peter Lemenkov <lemenkov@xxxxxxxxx> ---
(In reply to Jan Drögehoff from comment #4)
> (In reply to Peter Lemenkov from comment #3)
> > Few remarks.
> > 
> > * Quick question - should these two libraries go to the main mpv package?
> > Looks very generic to me.
> > 
> > ```
> > %dir %{_libdir}/mpv/
> > %dir %{_sysconfdir}/mpv/scripts
> > ```
> > 
> > Not a blocker - but please in the meantime discuss this thins with mpv
> > maintainer.
> 
> This was initially done at request by leight scott
> https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=5520#c1
> and has also been adopted for the only other mpv plugin in the Fedora repos
> https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/mpv_inhibit_gnome/blob/rawhide/f/
> mpv_inhibit_gnome.spec
> 
> the reason its done like this is because plugins don't go into the libdir,
> they go into `/etc/mpv`, where the mpv systemwide-prefix is.
> I can talk with the mpv maintainers if `/etc/mpv` could be turned into a
> symlink to the lib folder, which would make this a lot nicer and allow
> shared objects to stay where they should be.

OK, got this. Please in the future discuss it once again with others. Right now
having so-links in my /etc/ folder looks quite strange to me.

> > * Also it looks like your SPEC-file is different with the one from
> > SRPM-file. Please take a look at this.
> 
> I linked the fail on the main branch and right after opening this the F41
> rebuild happened.
> https://pkgs.rpmfusion.org/cgit/free/mpv-mpris.git/plain/mpv-mpris.
> spec?id=9d4c3a091a5f4292a4efd69bba559995e36ec6ce has the spec prior to this

Just ensure the latest spec-file used  before uploading.

> > * More worse issue is lots of "undefined-non-weak-symbol" rpmlint messages.
> > Should the library be linked against mpv-libs?
> 
> I couldn't get rpmlint to create this error on my end nor could I find it in
> the copr build.
> mpv-mpris does not link against libmpv directly since the library handles
> the plugin loading itself instead plugins are given a handle which they can
> use.

Double-check that the plugin actually loads by mpv and works as expected.

I don't see any other issues so this package is

================
=== APPROVED ===
================


-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2302351

Report this comment as SPAM: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla&format=report-spam&short_desc=Report%20of%20Bug%202302351%23c5

-- 
_______________________________________________
package-review mailing list -- package-review@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Do not reply to spam, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue




[Index of Archives]     [Fedora Users]     [Fedora Desktop]     [Fedora SELinux]     [Yosemite Conditions]     [KDE Users]

  Powered by Linux