January 2010 - rpmfusion-developers

[Bug 794] New: Review-request: r5u87x-loader - R5U87x webcam firmware loader

by RPM Fusion Bugzilla

http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=794 Summary: Review-request: r5u87x-loader - R5U87x webcam firmware loader 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: j.w.r.degoede(a)hhs.nl CC: rpmfusion-package-review(a)rpmfusion.org Blocks: 2 Estimated Hours: 0.0 SPEC: http://people.atrpms.net/~hdegoede/r5u87x-loader.spec SRPM: http://people.atrpms.net/~hdegoede/r5u87x-loader-0.2.0-1.32a27008b8b9.fc1... This package contains a firmware load tool and udev rules to load the firmware needed to make cameras based on Ricoh R5U87x chipsets work with the uvcvideo driver. Why RPMFusion ? -> Non Free Why Non Free -> because of the firmware microcode files -- 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.

13 years, 9 months

1
20
0 / 0

[Bug 782] New: Review Request: sonic-visualiser-freeworld - A program for viewing and exploring audio data

by RPM Fusion Bugzilla

http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=782 Summary: Review Request: sonic-visualiser-freeworld - A program for viewing and exploring audio data 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: Michael.Silvanus(a)gmail.com CC: rpmfusion-package-review(a)rpmfusion.org Estimated Hours: 0.0 spec: http://salimma.fedorapeople.org/specs/rpmfusion/sonic-visualiser-freeworl... srpm: http://salimma.fedorapeople.org/specs/rpmfusion/sonic-visualiser-freeworl... This is the Fedora package, additionally with MP3 support which cannot be shipped in Fedora. >From package description: Sonic Visualiser is an application for viewing and analysing the contents of music audio files. The aim of Sonic Visualiser is to be the first program you reach for when want to study a musical recording rather than simply listen to it. As well as a number of features designed to make exploring audio data as revealing and fun as possible, Sonic Visualiser also has powerful annotation capabilities to help you to describe what you find, and the ability to run automated annotation and analysis plugins in the Vamp analysis plugin format – as well as applying standard audio effects. -- 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.

13 years, 9 months

1
15
0 / 0

[Bug 1024] New: Review request: pushover - Fun puzzle game with dominos

by RPM Fusion Bugzilla

http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1024 Summary: Review request: pushover - Fun puzzle game with dominos 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: musuruan(a)gmail.com CC: rpmfusion-package-review(a)rpmfusion.org Blocks: 2 Estimated Hours: 0.0 Spec URL: http://musuruan.fedorapeople.org/pushover.spec SRPM URL: http://musuruan.fedorapeople.org/pushover-0.0.2-1.fc12.src.rpm Description: Rearrange the dominoes on the different platforms so that you can start a chainreaction that makes all dominoes topple over. Not eligible to be included in Fedora: it uses some proprietary graphics from the original game. rpmlint output: $ rpmlint /home/andrea/rpmbuild/SRPMS/pushover-0.0.2-1.fc12.src.rpm 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. $ rpmlint /home/andrea/rpmbuild/RPMS/x86_64/pushover-0.0.2-1.fc12.x86_64.rpm pushover.x86_64: W: dangling-symlink /usr/share/pushover/data/FreeSans.ttf /usr/share/fonts/gnu-free/FreeSans.ttf 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings. $ rpmlint /home/andrea/rpmbuild/RPMS/x86_64/pushover-debuginfo-0.0.2-1.fc12.x86_64.rpm 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. -- 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.

13 years, 10 months

1
16
0 / 0

[Bug 802] New: Review request: openafs - Enterprise Network File System

by RPM Fusion Bugzilla

http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=802 Summary: Review request: openafs - Enterprise Network File System 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: jjneely(a)ncsu.edu CC: rpmfusion-package-review(a)rpmfusion.org Blocks: 2 Estimated Hours: 0.0 This is my first RPM Fusion package, however I am a Fedora sponsored packager. These packages contain the userland bits for OpenAFS which depends on a 3rd party kernel module. http://www4.ncsu.edu/~jjneely/SPECS/openafs.spec http://www4.ncsu.edu/~jjneely/SRPMS/openafs-1.4.11-3.fc11.src.rpm $ rpmlint openafs-1.4.11-3.fc11.src.rpm 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. $ rpmlint openafs-1.4.11-3.fc11.i586.rpm openafs.i586: W: executable-stack /usr/lib/libafssetpag.so.1.0 openafs.i586: W: shared-lib-calls-exit /usr/lib/libafsrpc.so.1.1 exit(a)GLIBC_2.0 openafs.i586: W: executable-stack /usr/lib/libafsrpc.so.1.1 openafs.i586: W: shared-lib-calls-exit /usr/lib/libafsauthent.so.1.0 exit(a)GLIBC_2.0 openafs.i586: W: dangerous-command-in-%preun rm 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 5 warnings. Library issues: If we need to find/open a bug with the OpenAFS's bugtracker we can, but I don't think it wise to make API/ABI chages only in the version supplied by rpmfusion. dangerous-command-in-%preun: Required to clean up the OpenAFS cache in /var/cache/openafs $ rpmlint openafs-client-1.4.11-3.fc11.i586.rpm openafs-client.i586: W: no-documentation openafs-client.i586: E: non-standard-dir-perm /var/cache/openafs 0700 Documentation provided in parent package. The cache directory must only be readable by root to avoid users being able to see other users' data. $ rpmlint openafs-devel-1.4.11-3.fc11.i586.rpm openafs-devel.i586: W: no-documentation openafs-devel.i586: E: zero-length /usr/include/afs/osi_inode.h I can remove osi_inode.h if needed. It is empty in the distribution tar ball. $ rpmlint openafs-server-1.4.11-3.fc11.i586.rpm openafs-server.i586: W: no-documentation -- 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.

13 years, 10 months

2
38
0 / 0

[Bug 803] New: Review request: openafs-kmod - Kernel Modules

by RPM Fusion Bugzilla

http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=803 Summary: Review request: openafs-kmod - Kernel Modules 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: jjneely(a)ncsu.edu CC: rpmfusion-package-review(a)rpmfusion.org Blocks: 2 Estimated Hours: 0.0 This is the matching kernel module for the OpenAFS packages. http://www4.ncsu.edu/~jjneely/SPECS/openafs-kmod.spec http://www4.ncsu.edu/~jjneely/SRPMS/openafs-kmod-1.4.11-1.fc11.src.rpm $ rpmlint openafs-kmod-1.4.11-1.fc11.src.rpm 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. $ rpmlint kmod-openafs-1.4.11-1.fc11.i586.rpm kmod-openafs.i586: W: no-documentation 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings. $ rpmlint kmod-openafs-2.6.29.6-217.2.16.fc11.i686.PAE-1.4.11-1.fc11.i686.rpm kmod-openafs-2.6.29.6-217.2.16.fc11.i686.PAE.i686: W: summary-not-capitalized openafs kernel module(s) for 2.6.29.6-217.2.16.fc11.i686.PAE kmod-openafs-2.6.29.6-217.2.16.fc11.i686.PAE.i686: W: unstripped-binary-or-object /lib/modules/2.6.29.6-217.2.16.fc11.i686.PAE/extra/openafs/openafs.ko kmod-openafs-2.6.29.6-217.2.16.fc11.i686.PAE.i686: W: no-documentation 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 3 warnings. I believe the above rpmlintage is pretty normal for kmods. -- 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.

13 years, 10 months

1
24
0 / 0

[Bug 828] New: Review Request: omnibook-kmod - Kernel module for HP Omnibook/Pavillon, Toshiba Satellite and Compal laptops

by RPM Fusion Bugzilla

http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=828 Summary: Review Request: omnibook-kmod - Kernel module for HP Omnibook/Pavillon, Toshiba Satellite and Compal laptops 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: rpm(a)greysector.net CC: rpmfusion-package-review(a)rpmfusion.org Blocks: 2 Estimated Hours: 0.0 Spec URL:http://rathann.fedorapeople.org/review/omnibook-kmod.spec SRPM URL:http://rathann.fedorapeople.org/review/omnibook-kmod-2.20090714-0.1.s... Description: Linux kernel module for many HP Omnibook/Pavillon, Toshiba Satellite (with Phoenix BIOS) and Compal laptops. It is based on the module found in the 'omke' project. And the -common package: Spec URL:http://rathann.fedorapeople.org/review/omnibook-kmod-common.spec SRPM URL:http://rathann.fedorapeople.org/review/omnibook-kmod-common-2.2009071... rpmlint output: kmod-omnibook.x86_64: W: no-documentation kmod-omnibook-2.6.30.5-43.fc11.x86_64.x86_64: W: summary-not-capitalized omnibook kernel module(s) for 2.6.30.5-43.fc11.x86_64 kmod-omnibook-2.6.30.5-43.fc11.x86_64.x86_64: W: unstripped-binary-or-object /lib/modules/2.6.30.5-43.fc11.x86_64/extra/omnibook/omnibook.ko kmod-omnibook-2.6.30.5-43.fc11.x86_64.x86_64: W: no-documentation 6 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 4 warnings. -- 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.

13 years, 11 months

2
16
0 / 0

[Bug 952] New: Review request: Maelstrom - Space combat game

by RPM Fusion Bugzilla

http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=952 Summary: Review request: Maelstrom - Space combat game 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: j.w.r.degoede(a)hhs.nl CC: rpmfusion-package-review(a)rpmfusion.org Blocks: 2 Estimated Hours: 0.0 SPEC: http://people.fedoraproject.org/~jwrdegoede/Maelstrom.spec SRPM: http://people.fedoraproject.org/~jwrdegoede/Maelstrom-3.0.6-19.fc12.src.rpm Description : Maelstrom is a space combat game, originally ported from the Macintosh platform. Brave pilots get to dodge asteroids and fight off other ships at the same time. Note eligible for Fedora: It has just been blocked from rawhide because the data is non free: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=529907 Note that the specfile is almost unchanged from the Fedora one, so this should be a simple review (I did some minor cleanups). rpmlint output: Maelstrom.src: W: invalid-license Distributable Maelstrom.x86_64: W: invalid-license Distributable Maelstrom-debuginfo.x86_64: W: invalid-license Distributable Duh, that is why it is going to rpmfusion. Maelstrom.x86_64: E: score-file-must-not-be-conffile /var/lib/games/Maelstrom-Scores This is just plain wrong, if the high score file is not marked %config(noreplace), then the highscores will get reset to their defaults with each package update. Maelstrom.x86_64: E: non-standard-executable-perm /usr/bin/Maelstrom 02755 This is for the shared highscore file. -- 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.

13 years, 11 months

1
10
0 / 0

[Bug 1030] New: Review request: xbmc - Media center

by RPM Fusion Bugzilla

http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1030 Summary: Review request: xbmc - Media center 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: alexl(a)users.sourceforge.net CC: rpmfusion-package-review(a)rpmfusion.org Blocks: 2 Estimated Hours: 0.0 Spec file: http://alexlan.fedorapeople.org/rpmfusion/xbmc.spec SRPM: http://alexlan.fedorapeople.org/rpmfusion/xbmc-9.11-3.fc12.src.rpm Note that XBMC is a big package, the SRPM is 135 MB (although the binary is only 32 MB). Why not in Fedora: this requires linking against codecs such as ffmpeg and libmad which are not in Fedora. As for other media players such as mplayer there is no simple way to have the media player itself in Fedora and the codecs in RPM Fusion that I am aware of. This is my second RPM Fusion package, I also maintain picard-freeworld. Several other XBMC contributors are willing to help maintain this package through me, at least initially. I am also an active Fedora maintainer: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Alexlan There are some outstanding issues for this package (noted below) that probably need to be resolved as we go through the review process. Nevertheless I want to submit this package to get some initial feedback from the RPM Fusion community regarding the general feasibility of including xbmc in the repository before spending a lot of time with upstream fixing the various issues. 1. The first issue (as revealed in the rpmlint log, below) is that xbmc installs no-arch independent code in /usr/share/xbmc/. We probably need to work with upstream to see how best to relocate these binaries to /usr/lib{64}/. 2. Secondly, XBMC used to bundle private copies of many of their libraries but recently have made efforts to make it possible to use system libraries (e.g. ffmpeg and python). However there are a couple of places where this is still done, such as libexif. Upstream is willing to consider patches to make it possible to use system libraries, so it should be possible to phase out any remaining bundled libraries, even if they aren't yet so in the SRPM I submitted above. # rpmlint xbmc-9.11-3.fc12.x86_64.rpm xbmc.x86_64: E: arch-dependent-file-in-usr-share /usr/share/xbmc/system/players/paplayer/gensapu-x86_64-linux.so xbmc.x86_64: E: arch-dependent-file-in-usr-share /usr/share/xbmc/system/players/paplayer/dumb-x86_64-linux.so xbmc.x86_64: E: arch-dependent-file-in-usr-share /usr/share/xbmc/system/players/paplayer/stsoundlibrary-x86_64-linux.so xbmc.x86_64: E: arch-dependent-file-in-usr-share /usr/share/xbmc/system/players/paplayer/timidity-x86_64-linux.so xbmc.x86_64: E: arch-dependent-file-in-usr-share /usr/share/xbmc/system/players/dvdplayer/libdvdnav-x86_64-linux.so xbmc.x86_64: E: arch-dependent-file-in-usr-share /usr/share/xbmc/screensavers/Euphoria.xbs xbmc.x86_64: E: arch-dependent-file-in-usr-share /usr/share/xbmc/system/ImageLib-x86_64-linux.so xbmc.x86_64: E: arch-dependent-file-in-usr-share /usr/share/xbmc/visualisations/opengl_spectrum.vis xbmc.x86_64: E: arch-dependent-file-in-usr-share /usr/share/xbmc/system/hdhomerun-x86_64-linux.so xbmc.x86_64: E: arch-dependent-file-in-usr-share /usr/share/xbmc/system/players/paplayer/libsidplay2-x86_64-linux.so xbmc.x86_64: E: arch-dependent-file-in-usr-share /usr/share/xbmc/system/libexif-x86_64-linux.so xbmc.x86_64: E: arch-dependent-file-in-usr-share /usr/share/xbmc/system/libid3tag-x86_64-linux.so xbmc.x86_64: E: arch-dependent-file-in-usr-share /usr/share/xbmc/system/players/paplayer/nosefart-x86_64-linux.so xbmc.x86_64: E: arch-dependent-file-in-usr-share /usr/share/xbmc/system/python/python26-x86_64-linux.so xbmc.x86_64: E: arch-dependent-file-in-usr-share /usr/share/xbmc/system/players/paplayer/ac3codec-x86_64-linux.so xbmc.x86_64: E: arch-dependent-file-in-usr-share /usr/share/xbmc/visualisations/Waveform.vis xbmc.x86_64: E: arch-dependent-file-in-usr-share /usr/share/xbmc/xbmc.bin xbmc.x86_64: E: arch-dependent-file-in-usr-share /usr/share/xbmc/system/players/paplayer/vgmstream-x86_64-linux.so xbmc.x86_64: E: arch-dependent-file-in-usr-share /usr/share/xbmc/screensavers/Solarwinds.xbs xbmc.x86_64: E: arch-dependent-file-in-usr-share /usr/share/xbmc/system/players/paplayer/MACDll-x86_64-linux.so xbmc.x86_64: E: arch-dependent-file-in-usr-share /usr/share/xbmc/visualisations/ProjectM.vis xbmc.x86_64: E: arch-dependent-file-in-usr-share /usr/share/xbmc/xbmc-xrandr xbmc.x86_64: E: arch-dependent-file-in-usr-share /usr/share/xbmc/visualisations/Goom.vis xbmc.x86_64: E: arch-dependent-file-in-usr-share /usr/share/xbmc/screensavers/Plasma.xbs xbmc.x86_64: E: arch-dependent-file-in-usr-share /usr/share/xbmc/system/players/paplayer/adpcm-x86_64-linux.so xbmc.x86_64: W: no-documentation xbmc.x86_64: E: non-executable-script /usr/share/xbmc/system/python/spyce/spyceCmd.py 0644 /usr/bin/env xbmc.x86_64: E: non-executable-script /usr/share/xbmc/system/python/spyce/run_spyceCmd.py 0644 /usr/bin/env xbmc.x86_64: E: non-executable-script /usr/share/xbmc/system/python/spyce/verchk.py 0644 /usr/bin/env xbmc.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/share/xbmc/visualisations/xbmc_vis.h xbmc.x86_64: E: non-executable-script /usr/share/xbmc/system/python/spyce/spyceCGI.py 0644 /usr/bin/env xbmc.x86_64: E: non-executable-script /usr/share/xbmc/system/python/spyce/run_spyceModpy.py 0644 /usr/bin/env xbmc.x86_64: E: non-executable-script /usr/share/xbmc/system/python/spyce/run_spyceCGI.py 0644 /usr/bin/env xbmc.x86_64: E: non-executable-script /usr/share/xbmc/system/python/spyce/spyce.py 0644 /usr/bin/env 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 32 errors, 2 warnings. arch-dependent files in /usr/share are still in rpm for reasons as noted above. The non-executable script messages result from plugins .py files that are run from within xbmc, but not by users, I believe. # rpmlint xbmc-9.11-3.fc12.src.rpm xbmc.src: W: no-cleaning-of-buildroot %clean 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings. Only just noticed this warning after the upload: will fix in next iteration. -- 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.

13 years, 12 months

5
190
0 / 0

[Bug 934] New: Review request: mplayerthumbs - Thumbnail generator

by RPM Fusion Bugzilla

http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=934 Summary: Review request: mplayerthumbs - Thumbnail generator 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: zarko.pintar(a)gmail.com CC: rpmfusion-package-review(a)rpmfusion.org Blocks: 2 Estimated Hours: 0.0 Spec: http://wiki.open.hr/~zpintar/fedora-11/SPECS/mplayerthumbs.spec src: http://wiki.open.hr/~zpintar/fedora-11/i386/mplayerthumbs-1.2-1.fc11.src.rpm Description: MPlayerThumbs is a thumbnail generator for all KDE file managers (konqueror, dolphin, ...) This program needs MPlayer to work. rpmlint is clean, mock builds for i386 and x86_64 are clean, too. -- 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

1
4
0 / 0

renaming sdlmame to mame

by Julian Sikorski

Hi, as of 0.136u1, sdlmame has been merged with the official version - i.e. the SDL osd is now part of the MAME source. Thus, I'd like to request a package rename. What's the correct procedure to do that? Is opening a bug blocking the CVS admin one enough? Julian

14 years, 1 month

3
6
0 / 0

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

rpmfusion-developers January 2010