January 2009 - rpmfusion-developers

[Bug 324] New: rt3070-kmod: Kernel module for wireless devices with Ralink's rt307x chipsets

by RPM Fusion Bugzilla

http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=324 Summary: rt3070-kmod: Kernel module for wireless devices with Ralink's rt307x chipsets Product: Package Reviews Version: Current Platform: All OS/Version: GNU/Linux Status: NEW Severity: normal Priority: P5 Component: Review Request AssignedTo: rpmfusion-package-review(a)rpmfusion.org ReportedBy: oget.fedora(a)gmail.com CC: rpmfusion-package-review(a)rpmfusion.org Blocks: 2 Estimated Hours: 0.0 kmod: SPEC: http://oget.fedorapeople.org/review/rt3070-kmod.spec SRPM: http://oget.fedorapeople.org/review/rt3070-kmod-2.0.1.0-1.fc10.src.rpm common: SPEC: http://oget.fedorapeople.org/review/rt3070.spec SRPM: http://oget.fedorapeople.org/review/rt3070-2.0.1.0-1.fc10.src.rpm rpmlint: W: no-documentation Docs are in common package W: summary-not-capitalized rt3070 kernel module(s) for 2.6.27.9-73.fc9.x86_64 That is because the module name is not capitalized itself (consistent with rt28x0 packages) W: unstripped-binary-or-object rt3070sta.ko can be ignored ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- This is my candidate for the crappiest Linux driver ever created. They basically took the rt2870 driver and modified it to support rt3070. There is nothing wrong for them with stealing their own code. But there were a few issues that I had to solve: - For some reason they took an older rt2870 driver version and modified it. Hence the driver will not compile for Fedora kernels 2.6.25 and newer. So I had the re-introduce our iwe-stream patch. - They did not even bother to change the filenames or variable names in the code. The code says "rt2870" but it actually means "rt3070". Confusing. I had to rename the RT2870STA.DAT file to RT3070STA.DAT to avoid conflicts with our rt2870 kmod. Other than these two things, both the common and the kmod package is identical to our rt2870 packages in rpmfusion. I admit that this package is crap. But still, there might be people who can benefit from it. -- Configure bugmail: http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. You are the assignee for the bug.

15 years, 8 months

1
7
0 / 0

[Bug 177] New: VisualBoyAdvance - Nintendo Gameboy (, Advance, Color) Emulator

by RPM Fusion Bugzilla

http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=177 Summary: VisualBoyAdvance - Nintendo Gameboy (,Advance,Color) Emulator Product: Package Reviews Version: Current Platform: All OS/Version: GNU/Linux Status: NEW Severity: normal Priority: P5 Component: Review Request AssignedTo: rpmfusion-package-review(a)rpmfusion.org ReportedBy: konrad(a)tylerc.org CC: rpmfusion-package-review(a)rpmfusion.org Estimated Hours: 0.0 Spec URL: http://konradm.fedorapeople.org/fedora/SPECS/VisualBoyAdvance.spec SRPM URL: http://konradm.fedorapeople.org/fedora/SRPMS/VisualBoyAdvance-1.7.2-1.fc9... Description: VisualBoyAdvance is a Nintendo (TM) Gameboy and GameboyAdvance emulator with debugging capabilities. For reasons why it can't be in Fedora, see: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=466658 . Rpmlint is silent. -- Configure bugmail: http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. You are the assignee for the bug.

15 years, 8 months

1
3
0 / 0

[Bug 343] New: Review request: pdftk - The PDF Tool Kit

by RPM Fusion Bugzilla

http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=343 Summary: Review request: pdftk - The PDF Tool Kit Product: Package Reviews Version: Current Platform: All OS/Version: GNU/Linux Status: NEW Severity: normal Priority: P5 Component: Review Request AssignedTo: rpmfusion-package-review(a)rpmfusion.org ReportedBy: Jochen(a)herr-schmitt.de CC: rpmfusion-package-review(a)rpmfusion.org Blocks: 2,30 Estimated Hours: 0.0 SPEC: http://www.herr-schmitt.de/pub/pdftk/pdftk.spec SRPM: http://www.herr-schmitt.de/pub/pdftk/pdftk-1.14-6.fc10.src.rpm Description: If PDF is electronic paper, then pdftk is an electronic staple-remover, hole-punch, binder, secret-decoder-ring, and X-Ray-glasses. Pdftk is a simple tool for doing everyday things with PDF documents. Keep one in the top drawer of your desktop and use it to: * Merge PDF Documents * Split PDF Pages into a New Document * Decrypt Input as Necessary (Password Required) * Encrypt Output as Desired * Burst a PDF Document into Single Pages * Report on PDF Metrics, including Metadata and Bookmarks * Uncompress and Re-Compress Page Streams * Repair Corrupted PDF (Where Possible) $ rpmlint pdftk-1.41-6.fc10.src.rpm pdftk.src: W: mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs (spaces: line 23, tab: line 1) 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings. $ rpmlint pdftk-1.41-6.fc10.x86_64.rpm 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. $ rpmlint pdftk-debuginfo-1.41-6.fc10.x86_64.rpm 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. Additional information: This is my first rpmfusion package, so I need a sponsor. -- Configure bugmail: http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. You are the assignee for the bug.

15 years, 8 months

1
8
0 / 0

Anonymous CVS access to rpmfusion CVS?

by Laurent Rineau

Hi, I would like to have a look at the spec files and sources of several packages from rpmfusion. Is there any anonymous CVS access? If not, knowing that I have am in the 'packager' group of Fedora: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/accounts/user/view/rineau can I be in the 'cvsextras' group of RpmFusion, without contributing any package (yet)? https://fas.rpmfusion.org/accounts/user/view/rineau -- Laurent Rineau http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/LaurentRineau

15 years, 8 months

4
9
0 / 0

Where we are and where do we what to go?

by Thorsten Leemhuis

Hi! It afaics can help a lot to now and then step back for a moment and try to look with at where we are some distance; after that it's often the time to think about where we want to be in one, two or five years from now. I tried to do that over the last few days; find my thoughts below. One note: consider to stop reading this mail *now* temporary and instead quickly and roughly write down a few of your own thoughts of where RPM Fusion is and where it should head to. After that continue to read this mail -- if you find that some of your thoughts are missing in below list consider to send them to the mailing list for wider discussion. = Where we are = - we started a few months ago and it worked out quite well afaics; right now the repos and the packages in it might not be perfect, but the repos overall were and still are in acceptable good condition - since we started we got some new packages and a few new contributors; that's good, but in fact I had hopped the numbers of new contributors would be a little bit higher - activity to improve the project as a whole (not meaning the repo or the individual packages) went down a lot since we started :-( we just do "business as usual", which might be very dangerous in the long term - no automatic dep check script running that makes sure our repo is in a sane state; that is something we really need! - EL repo: We need to decide if we let this lift of or drop it now before it started for real. Yes, some packagers like the idea and maintain their packages for the repo, but that's not enough for a repo to last; for the EL repo to really lift of we need someone that takes care of it as kind of "release manager" (I'm doing that job a bit for the Fedora repos; someone else, that actually uses EL more than I do should do it for EL; BTW, where did all those go that were interested in supporting EL as they maintained their own rpmfusion/livna rebuilds for EL somewhere already)? - Xavier is the only one that takes care of the infrastructure (don't count me, I don't want to do it the infra things I do now and then); that's bad and needs to change; we actually had one or two (maybe more) serious offers from people that wanted to help, but nothing happened, which afaics was at least partly our fault - we have only one person that has access to the signing keys, their pass-phrase and the buildserver; that makes some things easier (no coordination needed), but is a single point of failure (/me wonders why nobody yelled yet about this; seems nobody is interested in things like that, which might mean that this mail likely won't get much attention either). We at least should have one (better: two) additional signers (they of course need to be trustworthy; being on IRC a lot would make coordination easier) -- ideally at least one of them should be located in a timezone that is a bit away from Europe - knurd is also the signle point of failure for the buildsys, as only he has access to the actual builders; that will be changed for one of the x86 builders soon; - thias (who sometime is hard to catch) is the only one that can change DNS in case that's needed - pushing the free repo can take quite some time (an hour? never measured the exact time); would be nice to speed things up (NFS might be the bottleneck that slows things down), but that's just a detail - a good bunch of mirrors and a nice infra to manage them; what are those "metalink urls" that fedora recently started to use for the alpha? should we use those in the future as well? - parts of the wiki need a cleanup; ideally somebody would constantly watch and take care of the wiki as a whole - some of our processes are afaics not documented at all or not properly documented - documentation in general: there are lots of FAQ, Howto and other docs on the net that describe how to use RPM Fusion; often those are misleading, not fully right, outdated or they disagree with each other; should we try to not only be the inoffical official 3rd party repo for Fedora, but also be the offical 3rd party source for all the docs that can't go straight to Fedora? - there is a small steering committee, but that doesn't meet and until now was rarely used; having a real one (or simply a loose group of people that want to improve RPM Fusion) that regularly meets on IRC could help bringing the project as a whole forward - some ideas for new repos were mentioned (staging; unstable; someone iirc also mentioned the idea to get kde-redhat under the hood, which could have benefits for both sides), but nobody drove those ideas forward - still lots of other 3rd party repos out there; users still run into problems as they try to mix incompatible repos; should we actively try to get more repos merged into RPM Fusion? - rpmfusion-buildsys broken; no announcement mailing list; no real planet or other things to get important information out to the users - out graphics driver packages seem to have not a real good reputation: users accidentally remove the stuff that is needed in xorg.conf with tools like ati-config, nvidia-xconfig, ... and hence break the drivers. Users are also confused by the different drivers; many don't know which one to choose (legacy, 96xx, 173xx, beta, ...) - kmods for new kernels nearly always get pushed within minutes after the new kernel got out. But the rebuild is still manually kicked of. Not much work left to fully automate that work; knurd just needs to sit down and do it; pushing will stay manually in any case (for this a second signer in a non-EU-timezone would be ideal). But: - RPM Fusion packages with hard deps on Fedora packages (kmods, xine, qmmp, audacious, ...) often create lots of problems for Fedora users due to mirrors lags (RPM Fusion mirror might be have a newer xine-lib-extrs-nonfree while the Fedora mirror yum doesn't have the matching xine-lib yet or vice versa; details: https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-devel-list/2008-August/msg00041.html ) we really need a solution for this, but I don't know how and my questions how to fix this seemed to get ignored by skvidal :-/ - handling of kmods for PAE and other special kernel variants could be easier; no big problem, but it needs to be easier in case -PAE kernels become default for i686 (see recent discussion on fedora-kernel-list) - no RPM Fusion Fedora remix maintained within the project; do we want one? Or even proper install DVDs that already contain packages from RPM Fusion? - should we have a page "this are the goals we want to archive with RPM Fusion" in the wiki somewhere? That afaics often helps to get people together and work towards realizing those goals = Where we want to go = The "where we are" part already had some areas and suggestion where things need to be improved; here are some more: - it would be really nice to have a small helper app that is used for enabling RPM Fusion and initial configuration. E.g. users could download that helper app rpm instead of the two release-rpms (or it could be part of the rpmfusion-free-release rpm); that helper app then could ask a few questions like "Do you want "nonfree" packages?" or "do you want to enable compatible repos like the adobe repo?". After that it could act according to what the user wants and what's found on the system (e.g. install rpmfusion-nonfree-release; install xine-lib-extras-nonfree if xine-lib is found; same for gstreamer-plugins, k3b and others; this maybe should be done by a daemon later as well to keep things smooth); maybe this helper app could even enable livna, but that might be tricky as the livna repofile must not be in that package (I guess retrieving the data from the net OHOH should be save) . Yes, I'm fully aware that such apps that do parts of this exist already. But some do stupid things and everyone could benefit from a sane app official app in RPM Fusion. - Another small app (either tied into or separate of the install helper?) could things similar to the one jockey does in ubuntu (see https://launchpad.net/jockey and http://people.ubuntu.com/~pitti/screenshots/jockey/ ). Firewing1 is thinking about doing something like this already, which should make the "users don#t know which driver to choose" part easier With something outlined as roughly above we in the end could provide a solution that "just works" -- install Fedora, download helper-app from RPM Fusion, ask a few (max. something like 5) unavoidable questions, wait a few minutes, fully working system with all the user wants. - switch to koji, bodhi, packagedb -> Xavier iirc is thinking about that and maybe doing some preparation for that; would be nice to switch, but no need to hurry, current setup works = EOF = That all from my side. For now (I guess I forgot a few things and those will come to my mind as soon as I hit the "send" button). But whatever: I'd be interested in your ideas and comments on the above; then we should work out which things we'll try to work on in the near future CU knurd

15 years, 8 months

12
60
0 / 0

[Bug 151] New: Review Request: systemc - Design and verification language for Hardware

by RPM Fusion Bugzilla

http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=151 Summary: Review Request: systemc - Design and verification language for Hardware Product: Package Reviews Version: Current Platform: All OS/Version: GNU/Linux Status: NEW Severity: normal Priority: P5 Component: Review Request AssignedTo: rpmfusion-package-review(a)rpmfusion.org ReportedBy: cgoorah(a)yahoo.com.au CC: rpmfusion-package-review(a)rpmfusion.org Blocks: 2 Estimated Hours: 0.0 Spec URL: http://chitlesh.fedorapeople.org/systemC/systemc.spec SRPM URL: http://chitlesh.fedorapeople.org/systemC/systemc-2.2.0-1.fc9.src.rpm Description: SystemC™ is a language built in standard C++ by extending the language with the use of class libraries. SystemC addresses the need for a system design and verification language that spans hardware and software. SystemC is listed among Fedora Electronic Lab (FEL) packages. -------------- SystemC couldn't be part of the Fedora collection. TomCallaway and Red Hat lawyers talked to upstream. But upstream don't want to change any clause of their license. SystemC Fedora's bugzilla blocked as CANTFIX https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=453335 rpmlint's warnings: systemc.i386: W: invalid-license SystemC Open Source License 2.3 systemc.i386: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package can be ignored. devel-file-in-non-devel-package: Systemc is a collection of c++ class libraries for hardware design. -- Configure bugmail: http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. You are the assignee for the bug.

15 years, 9 months

2
29
0 / 0

[Bug 261] New: Review Request: buildsys-mockcfg-rpmfusion_free - Mock config files for the RPM Fusion Free Repository

by RPM Fusion Bugzilla

http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=261 Summary: Review Request: buildsys-mockcfg-rpmfusion_free - Mock config files for the RPM Fusion Free Repository Product: Package Reviews Version: Current Platform: All OS/Version: GNU/Linux Status: NEW Severity: normal Priority: P5 Component: Review Request AssignedTo: rpmfusion-package-review(a)rpmfusion.org ReportedBy: kwizart(a)gmail.com CC: rpmfusion-package-review(a)rpmfusion.org Blocks: 3 Estimated Hours: 0.0 SPEC: http://rpms.kwizart.net/fedora/reviews/buildsys-mockcfg-rpmfusion/buildsy... SRPM: http://rpms.kwizart.net/fedora/reviews/buildsys-mockcfg-rpmfusion/buildsy... Summary: Mock config files for the RPM Fusion Free Repository -- Configure bugmail: http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. You are the assignee for the bug.

15 years, 9 months

1
21
0 / 0

[Bug 262] New: Review Request: buildsys-mockcfg-rpmfusion_nonfree - Mock config files for the RPM Fusion NonFree Repository

by RPM Fusion Bugzilla

http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=262 Summary: Review Request: buildsys-mockcfg-rpmfusion_nonfree - Mock config files for the RPM Fusion NonFree Repository Product: Package Reviews Version: Current Platform: All OS/Version: GNU/Linux Status: NEW Severity: normal Priority: P5 Component: Review Request AssignedTo: rpmfusion-package-review(a)rpmfusion.org ReportedBy: kwizart(a)gmail.com CC: rpmfusion-package-review(a)rpmfusion.org Blocks: 3 Estimated Hours: 0.0 SPEC: http://rpms.kwizart.net/fedora/reviews/buildsys-mockcfg-rpmfusion/buildsy... SRPM: http://rpms.kwizart.net/fedora/reviews/buildsys-mockcfg-rpmfusion/buildsy... Summary: Mock config files for the RPM Fusion NonFree Repository -- Configure bugmail: http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. You are the assignee for the bug.

15 years, 9 months

1
6
0 / 0

[Bug 269] New: Review Request: snowballz - a fun RTS game featuring snowball fights with penguins

by RPM Fusion Bugzilla

http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=269 Summary: Review Request: snowballz - a fun RTS game featuring snowball fights with penguins Product: Package Reviews Version: Current Platform: All URL: http://joey101.net/snowballz/ OS/Version: GNU/Linux Status: NEW Severity: normal Priority: P5 Component: Review Request AssignedTo: rpmfusion-package-review(a)rpmfusion.org ReportedBy: oget.fedora(a)gmail.com CC: rpmfusion-package-review(a)rpmfusion.org Depends on: 208 Blocks: 2 Estimated Hours: 0.0 SPEC: http://oget.fedorapeople.org/review/snowballz.spec SRPM: http://oget.fedorapeople.org/review/snowballz-1.0-0.1.beta1.20081222hg.fc... Description: Take command of your army of penguins as you blaze your path to victory! March through snow laden forests to conqueror new frontears and grow your small army. Ambush enemy lines with blasts of freezing snowballs. But don't neglect your home, invaders are just over the next snow drift! Gather fish for your cold penguins to munch on as they warm up in your cozy igloo. It's a snowy world you don't want to miss! Rpmlint: silent Why rpmfusion? Depends on pyglet Additional notes: Keep in mind that the game is still in beta stage Sneak peak: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E0QQ9JuclxE -- Configure bugmail: http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. You are the assignee for the bug.

15 years, 9 months

1
24
0 / 0

[Bug 123] New: Review Request: nvidia-173xx-kmod - NVIDIA's 173xx display driver kernel module

by RPM Fusion Bugzilla

http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=123 Summary: Review Request: nvidia-173xx-kmod - NVIDIA's 173xx display driver kernel module Product: Package Reviews Version: Current Platform: All OS/Version: GNU/Linux Status: NEW Severity: normal Priority: P5 Component: Review Request AssignedTo: rpmfusion-package-review(a)rpmfusion.org ReportedBy: kwizart(a)gmail.com CC: s.adam(a)diffingo.com, rpmfusion-package- review(a)rpmfusion.org Depends on: 122 Estimated Hours: 0.0 SRPM: http://rpms.kwizart.net/fedora/reviews/nvidia-173xx/nvidia-173xx-kmod-173... SPEC: http://rpms.kwizart.net/fedora/reviews/nvidia-173xx/nvidia-173xx-kmod.spec Summary: NVIDIA's 173xx display driver kernel module -- Configure bugmail: http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. You are the assignee for the bug.

15 years, 9 months

1
5
0 / 0

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

rpmfusion-developers January 2009