[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.
14 years
[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.
14 years
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
14 years
Devel buildsys broken?
by Andrea Musuruane
Hi,
I get the following error when trying to build xbill under devel.
I have no problem under F10 and F9.
Bye,
Andrea.
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: <rpmfusion-buildsys(a)lists.rpmfusion.org>
Date: Thu, Feb 26, 2009 at 8:51 PM
Subject: Build Error (Job 2919): xbill-2_1-2_fc11 on
fedora-development-rpmfusion_free
To: musuruan(a)gmail.com
Job failed on arch ppc64
Build logs may be found at
http://buildsys.rpmfusion.org/logs/fedora-development-rpmfusion_free/2919...
-------------------------------------------------
tcp_wrappers-libs ppc64 7.6-53.fc10 fedora-everything 67 k
tzdata noarch 2009a-1.fc11 fedora-everything 769 k
udev ppc64 137-4.fc11 fedora-everything 338 k
upstart ppc64 0.3.9-19.fc10 fedora-everything 280 k
ustr ppc64 1.0.4-7.fc10 fedora-everything 99 k
zlib ppc64 1.2.3-19.fc11 fedora-everything 79 k
Transaction Summary
================================================================================
Install 126 Package(s)
Update 0 Package(s)
Remove 0 Package(s)
Total download size: 130 M
Downloading Packages:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total 191 MB/s | 130 MB 00:00
Running rpm_check_debug
ERROR with rpm_check_debug vs depsolve:
rpmlib(FileDigests) is needed by popt-1.13-5.fc11.ppc64
rpmlib(FileDigests) is needed by kernel-headers-2.6.29-0.148.rc6.fc11.ppc64
rpmlib(FileDigests) is needed by procps-3.2.7-27.fc11.ppc64
rpmlib(FileDigests) is needed by bash-4.0-1.fc11.ppc64
rpmlib(FileDigests) is needed by ethtool-6-3.20090115git.fc11.ppc64
rpmlib(FileDigests) is needed by audit-libs-1.7.12-1.fc11.ppc64
Complete!
Cleaning up...
Executing /usr/sbin/mock-helper umount
/var/lib/mock/fedora-development-ppc64-rpmfusion_free-63770729c8223d26481b4aa0edc2f467385b1097/root/proc
Executing /usr/sbin/mock-helper umount
/var/lib/mock/fedora-development-ppc64-rpmfusion_free-63770729c8223d26481b4aa0edc2f467385b1097/root/dev/pts
Done.
14 years
Fwd: [Fedora-legal-list] xBill legal opinion required
by Andrea Musuruane
Hi,
this is the reply I got from Fedora Legal about xBill. I will
submit it to RPM Fusion shortly, but I think it is quite sad that more
and more things cannot go into Fedora, even an harmless game like this
one :(
Bye,
Andrea.
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Tom spot Callaway <tcallawa(a)redhat.com>
Date: Mon, Feb 16, 2009 at 8:45 PM
Subject: Re: [Fedora-legal-list] xBill legal opinion required
To: Rahul Sundaram <sundaram(a)redhat.com>
Cc: fedora-legal-list(a)redhat.com
On 2009-02-16 at 14:42:30 -0500, Rahul Sundaram <sundaram(a)redhat.com> wrote:
> Tom "spot" Callaway wrote:
>> On 2008-12-26 at 5:50:31 -0500, "Andrea Musuruane" <musuruan(a)gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>> Hi all,
>>> I'd like to now if xBill is suitable for inclusion in Fedora:
>>>
>>> http://www.xbill.org/
>>>
>>> License, as stated in the man entry, is GPL (no version specified).
>>>
>>> My concerns regard the use of various logos in the game.
>>>
>>> Also note that this game has been packaged until 2001 in Red Hat.
>>
>> Red Hat Legal says this is not acceptable.
>
> Is it because of the artwork? We can get it replaced.
Well, the issue is that the game is clearly disparaging Microsoft and
its marks. I'm not sure any amount of "artwork" replacement will
overcome that.
~spot
_______________________________________________
Fedora-legal-list mailing list
Fedora-legal-list(a)redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-legal-list
14 years, 1 month
