[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.
14 years, 6 months
[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.
14 years, 6 months
[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.
14 years, 6 months
[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.
14 years, 7 months
[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.
14 years, 8 months
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, 9 months
