[Bug 789] New: Review request: moc - Music on Console
by RPM Fusion Bugzilla
http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=789
Summary: Review request: moc - Music on Console
Product: Package Reviews
Version: Current
Platform: All
URL: http://raylu.no-ip.org/moc/
OS/Version: GNU/Linux
Status: NEW
Severity: normal
Priority: P5
Component: Review Request
AssignedTo: rpmfusion-package-review(a)rpmfusion.org
ReportedBy: rayllu(a)yahoo.com
CC: rpmfusion-package-review(a)rpmfusion.org
Blocks: 2,30
Estimated Hours: 0.0
http://raylu.no-ip.org/moc/moc-2.4.4-1.fc11.src.rpm
http://raylu.no-ip.org/moc/moc.spec
Description: MOC (music on console) is a console audio player for LINUX/UNIX.
This package is a modified version of the Fedora packages linked to from here:
http://moc.daper.net/download
MOC includes MP3 playback capabilities, which is why it's not eligible for the
Fedora repositories. Like the 2.4.0 i386 packages, I could split the decoder
plugins up and submit the MOC core to Fedora and the decoder plugins to RPM
Fusion (though I'm not clear on exactly what functionality is and isn't
allowed). Also to note is this review request in Fedora:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=490210
The patch that I include allows the FFmpeg decoder plugin to build when
ffmpeg-devel is installed, but it seems a bit hackish.
$ rpmlint SRPMS/moc-2.4.4-1.fc11.src.rpm
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.
$ rpmlint RPMS/x86_64/moc-2.4.4-1.fc11.x86_64.rpm
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.
However, I should note that the debug package gets:
$ rpmlint RPMS/x86_64/moc-debuginfo-2.4.4-1.fc11.x86_64.rpm
moc-debuginfo.x86_64: W: hidden-file-or-dir
/usr/src/debug/moc-2.4.4/libltdl/.libs
moc-debuginfo.x86_64: W: hidden-file-or-dir
/usr/src/debug/moc-2.4.4/libltdl/.libs
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings.
I am seeking a sponsor since this is my first package.
--
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
[Bug 899] New: REVIEW: imagination - a DVD Slide Show Creator
by RPM Fusion Bugzilla
http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=899
Summary: REVIEW: imagination - a DVD Slide Show Creator
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: alsadi(a)ojuba.org
CC: rpmfusion-package-review(a)rpmfusion.org
Estimated Hours: 0.0
hi, this is my first trial to pack something for rpmfusion
why not in fedora, because it depends on ffmpeg so it should be in
rpmfusion-free
the package is from http://imagination.sourceforge.net/
It's packing was straight forward.
here is the .src.rpm
http://www.ojuba.org/downloads/updates/3/SRPMS/imagination-2.1-1.oj3.src.rpm
I build it on ojuba 3 (fedora 11)
[alsadi@pc1 imagination]$ rpmlint
/opt/rpmbuild/RPMS/i586/imagination-2.1-1.oj3.i586.rpm
imagination.i586: W: incoherent-version-in-changelog 2.1-1 ['2.1-1.oj3',
'2.1-1.oj3']
imagination.i586: W: file-not-in-%lang
/usr/share/locale/cs/LC_MESSAGES/imagination.mo
imagination.i586: W: file-not-in-%lang
/usr/share/locale/de/LC_MESSAGES/imagination.mo
imagination.i586: W: file-not-in-%lang
/usr/share/locale/en_GB/LC_MESSAGES/imagination.mo
imagination.i586: W: file-not-in-%lang
/usr/share/locale/es/LC_MESSAGES/imagination.mo
imagination.i586: W: file-not-in-%lang
/usr/share/locale/fr/LC_MESSAGES/imagination.mo
imagination.i586: W: file-not-in-%lang
/usr/share/locale/it/LC_MESSAGES/imagination.mo
imagination.i586: W: file-not-in-%lang
/usr/share/locale/ja/LC_MESSAGES/imagination.mo
imagination.i586: W: file-not-in-%lang
/usr/share/locale/pt_BR/LC_MESSAGES/imagination.mo
imagination.i586: W: file-not-in-%lang
/usr/share/locale/ru/LC_MESSAGES/imagination.mo
imagination.i586: W: file-not-in-%lang
/usr/share/locale/sl_SI/LC_MESSAGES/imagination.mo
imagination.i586: W: file-not-in-%lang
/usr/share/locale/sv/LC_MESSAGES/imagination.mo
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 12 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
[Bug 1257] New: Review request - gpac - MPEG-4 multimedia framework
by RPM Fusion Bugzilla
http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1257
Summary: Review request - gpac - MPEG-4 multimedia framework
Product: Package Reviews
Version: Current
Platform: All
OS/Version: GNU/Linux
Status: NEW
Severity: minor
Priority: P5
Component: Review Request
AssignedTo: rpmfusion-package-review(a)rpmfusion.org
ReportedBy: lucas.jacobs(a)mines.sdsmt.edu
CC: kwizart(a)gmail.com, rpmfusion-package-
review(a)rpmfusion.org
Estimated Hours: 1.5
Created an attachment (id=427)
--> (http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/attachment.cgi?id=427)
Diff from old SRPM to new SRPM, without the new CVS tarball
SRPM: http://vidya.dyndns.org/stuff/gpac-0.4.6-0.4cvs20100527.fc13.src.rpm
SPEC: http://vidya.dyndns.org/stuff/gpac.spec
Description:
GPAC is a multimedia framework based on the MPEG-4 Systems standard developed
from scratch in ANSI C. The original development goal is to provide a clean,
small and flexible alternative to the MPEG-4 Systems reference software.
GPAC features the integration of recent multimedia standards (SVG/SMIL, VRML,
X3D, SWF, 3GPP(2) tools and more) into a single framework. GPAC also features
MPEG-4 Systems encoders/multiplexers, publishing tools for content distribution
for MP4 and 3GPP(2) files and many tools for scene descriptions
(MPEG4 <-> VRML <-> X3D converters, SWF -> MPEG-4, etc).
Short version:
This package is already in RPM Fusion, (patent concerns?) and used to include
MP4Box, a popular muxing tool. Currently the binary RPM doesn't include MP4Box,
and the source RPM doesn't build. This submission will fix that.
rpmlint mentions some harmless comments in the spec file that I didn't remove
because they were present in the previous version, and missing manpages for
some binaries - manpages for mp4box and mp4client are provided, however.
There's also the source tarball pulled straight from gpac's CVS repository
which needs to be hosted somewhere.
I've been using MP4Box built from this SRPM for a while, and it seems to work
fine. Osmo4 crashes on start, but that's nothing new. I haven't tried the rest
yet. I just finished getting the SRPM to cross-compile for a 32-bit target on a
64-bit platform, so that should be okay.
This is my first RPM Fusion package.
--
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
[Bug 459] New: Review request: nvidia-cuda-toolkit - NVIDIA CUDA Toolkit libraries
by RPM Fusion Bugzilla
http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=459
Summary: Review request: nvidia-cuda-toolkit - NVIDIA CUDA
Toolkit libraries
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: xjakub(a)fi.muni.cz
CC: rpmfusion-package-review(a)rpmfusion.org
Blocks: 2
Estimated Hours: 0.0
SPEC:
http://mjakubicek.fedorapeople.org/nvidia-cuda-toolkit/nvidia-cuda-toolki...
SRPM:
http://mjakubicek.fedorapeople.org/nvidia-cuda-toolkit/nvidia-cuda-toolki...
Description:
NVIDIA(R)CUDA(TM) is a general purpose parallel computing architecture
that leverages the parallel compute engine in NVIDIA graphics
processing units (GPUs) to solve many complex computational problems
in a fraction of the time required on a CPU. It includes the CUDA
Instruction Set Architecture (ISA) and the parallel compute engine in
the GPU. To program to the CUDATM architecture, developers can, today,
use C, one of the most widely used high-level programming languages,
which can then be run at great performance on a CUDATM enabled
processor. Other languages will be supported in the future, including
FORTRAN and C++.
Why this package is not eligible to be included in Fedora:
Not open source.
rpmlint output:
>rpmlint ../SRPMS/nvidia-cuda-toolkit-2.1-1.src.rpm
nvidia-cuda-toolkit.src:53: E: hardcoded-library-path in %{_prefix}/lib
This is ok, even moving file from the hardcoded path.
nvidia-cuda-toolkit.src: W: no-%build-section
Nothing to build. This, however, implies no stripping & no debuginfo.
Unfortunately, debuginfo creation fails because the binaries don't contatin
build id. I don't know whether there is something I could do with this.
>rpmlint ../RPMS/x86_64/nvidia-cuda-toolkit-*
nvidia-cuda-toolkit.x86_64: W: unstripped-binary-or-object /usr/bin/bec
nvidia-cuda-toolkit.x86_64: W: unstripped-binary-or-object /usr/bin/inline
nvidia-cuda-toolkit.x86_64: W: unstripped-binary-or-object /usr/bin/be
nvidia-cuda-toolkit.x86_64: W: unstripped-binary-or-object /usr/bin/gfec
nvidia-cuda-toolkit.x86_64: W: unstripped-binary-or-object /usr/bin/nvopencc
See the previous comment.
nvidia-cuda-toolkit.x86_64: W: shared-lib-calls-exit /usr/lib64/libcufft.so.2.1
exit(a)GLIBC_2.2.5
nvidia-cuda-toolkit.x86_64: W: shared-lib-calls-exit
/usr/lib64/libcufftemu.so.2.1 exit(a)GLIBC_2.2.5
nvidia-cuda-toolkit.x86_64: W: shared-lib-calls-exit
/usr/lib64/libcudart.so.2.1 exit(a)GLIBC_2.2.5
Again, there is nothing we can do with this, AFAIK.
This is my first RPM Fusion package, I'm already a Fedora packager (both FAS
names are mjakubicek). My primary motivation to package this is that I maintain
a CUDA-enabled application, see
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=487981.
--
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
[Bug 993] New: Review request: openshot - GNOME Non-linear video editor
by RPM Fusion Bugzilla
http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=993
Summary: Review request: openshot - GNOME Non-linear video editor
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-12/openshot.spec
SRC:
http://wiki.open.hr/~zpintar/fedora-12/openshot-0.9.54-1.fc12.src.rpm
Description:
OpenShot Video Editor is a free, open-source, non-linear video editor, based on
Python, GTK, and MLT. It can edit video and audio files, composite and
transition video files, and mix multiple layers of video and audio together and
render the output in many different formats.
Why is not on Fedora:
It depend of MLT Framework
Rpmlint output:
openshot.noarch: W: file-not-in-%lang
/usr/lib/python2.6/site-packages/openshot/locale/de_DE/LC_MESSAGES/OpenShot.mo
openshot.noarch: W: file-not-in-%lang
/usr/lib/python2.6/site-packages/openshot/locale/es_ES/LC_MESSAGES/OpenShot.mo
openshot.noarch: W: file-not-in-%lang
/usr/lib/python2.6/site-packages/openshot/locale/fr_FR/LC_MESSAGES/OpenShot.mo
openshot.noarch: W: file-not-in-%lang
/usr/lib/python2.6/site-packages/openshot/locale/it_IT/LC_MESSAGES/OpenShot.mo
openshot.noarch: W: file-not-in-%lang
/usr/lib/python2.6/site-packages/openshot/locale/nl_NL/LC_MESSAGES/OpenShot.mo
openshot.noarch: W: file-not-in-%lang
/usr/lib/python2.6/site-packages/openshot/locale/pt_PT/LC_MESSAGES/OpenShot.mo
openshot.noarch: W: file-not-in-%lang
/usr/lib/python2.6/site-packages/openshot/locale/sv_SE/LC_MESSAGES/OpenShot.mo
2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 7 warnings.
I tried to use %find_lang OpenShot macro but without 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
[Bug 1153] New: Review request: m2vmp2cut - MPEG2 frame accurate cutter
by RPM Fusion Bugzilla
http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1153
Summary: Review request: m2vmp2cut - MPEG2 frame accurate cutter
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: goeran(a)uddeborg.se
CC: rpmfusion-package-review(a)rpmfusion.org
Depends on: 985
Estimated Hours: 0.0
SRPM: ftp://ftp.uddeborg.se/pub/m2vmp2cut/m2vmp2cut-0.79-1.fc12.src.rpm
SPEC: ftp://ftp.uddeborg.se/pub/m2vmp2cut/m2vmp2cut.spec
Description:
m2vmp2cut is frame accurate (currently PAL) mpeg2 video (m2v file)
with accompanied mp2 audio (mp2 file) cutter.
Frame accuracy is achieved by re-encoding video around cutpoints.
Audio is cut from separate mp2 file at positions that keep a/v sync as
good as possible (maximum sync difference is around 10-15
milliseconds).
Very handy to cut out commercials from recordings of DVB transmissions! :-)
Why not Fedora:
This package depends on several other packages from RPM Fusion like libmpeg2.
One of them, ProjectX, has not yet passed the review, bug 985, so there is a
dependency between these two requests.
Rpmlint messages:
m2vmp2cut.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) bildprecis -> baldrics,
baldric's, boldface's
This and a number of similar complaints about the spelling is because of a
rpmbuild bug (https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=578299). In the
SRPM, the English description and summary contain the Swedish text.
There are some spelling-error warnings for the binary RPM too. Both about the
Swedish and the English description. They, I believe, are indeed correctly
spelled. Mostly it's about unknown acronyms
m2vmp2cut.src: W: no-cleaning-of-buildroot %install
m2vmp2cut.src: W: no-cleaning-of-buildroot %clean
m2vmp2cut.src: W: no-buildroot-tag
m2vmp2cut.src: W: no-%clean-section
I'm aiming this package for Fedora 13 and later, and in F13 these are no longer
needed.
--
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, 1 month
[Bug 775] New: Review request: xorg-x11-drv-psb - Intel GMA500 (Poulsbo) video driver (and associated packages)
by RPM Fusion Bugzilla
http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=775
Summary: Review request: xorg-x11-drv-psb - Intel GMA500
(Poulsbo) video driver (and associated packages)
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: adamwill(a)shaw.ca
CC: rpmfusion-package-review(a)rpmfusion.org
Blocks: 2
Estimated Hours: 0.0
Requesting a review for xorg-x11-drv-psb and several associated packages. This
is a driver for the Intel GMA 500 graphics chipset. The associated packages are
all required for the driver to work. This is the same driver I have been
publishing for a while on my blog at http://www.happyassassin.net/ .
SRPMs:
http://adamwill.fedorapeople.org/poulsbo/src/xorg-x11-drv-psb-0.31.0-8.fc...
http://adamwill.fedorapeople.org/poulsbo/src/libdrm-poulsbo-2.3.0-7.fc11....
http://adamwill.fedorapeople.org/poulsbo/src/psb-firmware-0.30-2.fc11.src...
http://adamwill.fedorapeople.org/poulsbo/src/psb-kmod-4.41.1-5.fc11.src.rpm
http://adamwill.fedorapeople.org/poulsbo/src/xpsb-glx-0.18-3.fc11.src.rpm
SPECs:
http://www.happyassassin.net/extras/xorg-x11-drv-psb.spec
http://www.happyassassin.net/extras/libdrm-poulsbo.spec
http://www.happyassassin.net/extras/psb-firmware.spec
http://www.happyassassin.net/extras/psb-kmod.spec
http://www.happyassassin.net/extras/xpsb-glx.spec
The driver needs to go in RPM Fusion due to licensing issues. The driver
itself, the modified libdrm it requires (libdrm-poulsbo) and the kernel module
it requires (psb-kmod) are open source. However, the driver is entirely
non-functional without the proprietary (but redistributable) packages
psb-firmware and xpsb-glx. I believe therefore that psb-firmware and xpsb-glx
should go in rpmfusion-nonfree. I'm not sure if the other packages should go in
rpmfusion-free or rpmfusion-nonfree. Since the driver has to contain explicit
Requires: for the firmware and xpsb-glx packages, I guess it should go in
nonfree, since dependencies from free to nonfree are probably not desirable.
Notes: this driver is the one from Ubuntu's custom edition that comes
pre-installed on Dell netbooks. libdrm-poulsbo is a customized build of libdrm
which is required (the X driver and kernel module won't build against a stock
libdrm). It is packaged to co-exist with the official libdrm package, but when
libdrm-poulsbo is installed, anything which is just linked against libdrm.so
will be using this customized version. In practice, it works well, I've been
running my own Poulsbo system with this setup for quite a while now. psb-kmod
is the kernel module (it's needed for the driver to work at all). psb-firmware
is some firmware which is required for the driver to work. xpsb-glx contains a
pre-built X.org library which is required for the driver to work, a pre-built
DRI library which is required for 3D acceleration to work, and a pre-built
module for 2D video playback acceleration via libva (I intend to submit a libva
package to Fedora main repos some time soon). All of these are only available
in pre-built form.
rpmlint notes:
akmod-psb.i586: E: devel-dependency libdrm-poulsbo-devel
akmod-psb.i586: E: explicit-lib-dependency libdrm-poulsbo-devel
akmod-psb.i586: W: no-documentation
the dependency is correct; the module needs libdrm-poulsbo-devel to be present
to build, so the akmod package must obviously require it. no-documentation - I
think this is normal for a kmod package? If not, please advise how to add docs.
libdrm-poulsbo.i586: E: explicit-lib-dependency libdrm
libdrm-poulsbo.i586: W: non-conffile-in-etc /etc/ld.so.conf.d/psb.conf
the explicit lib dependency is intended; the main libdrm package includes a
couple of binary tools, and it's better to have libdrm-poulsbo require it
rather than have it also ship the tools and conflict with it. The config file
is also intended: there's no reason an end user should modify this file.
psb-firmware.i586: E: no-binary
psb-firmware.i586: W: file-not-utf8 /usr/share/doc/psb-firmware-0.30/COPYING
it's just a firmware file. The package is arched because I believe the firmware
to be arch specific, not that there's ever going to be a Poulsbo graphics chip
in anything but an i586 system. I don't believe it's good practice to do a
character set conversion on a license file.
xorg-x11-drv-psb.i586: E: explicit-lib-dependency libdrm-poulsbo
xorg-x11-drv-psb.i586: W: non-conffile-in-etc /etc/modprobe.d/poulsbo.conf
xorg-x11-drv-psb.i586: W: service-default-enabled /etc/rc.d/init.d/psb
xorg-x11-drv-psb.i586: W: incoherent-subsys /etc/rc.d/init.d/psb $name
xorg-x11-drv-psb.i586: W: incoherent-init-script-name psb ('xorg-x11-drv-psb',
'xorg-x11-drv-psbd')
the explicit lib dep is again intentional: it's the only way to ensure the
customized libdrm, not the main one, is used when the driver is installed. the
config file not being marked as a config file is intentional: there's no reason
for an end user to modify it, it simply causes the module to be loaded
automatically when a Poulsbo graphics chip is found. I'm not quite sure what
the incoherent-subsys warning means, but the script in question is based
directly on the one from the NVIDIA package. Ditto the
incoherent-init-script-name warning, I'm following the conventions from the
NVIDIA package.
This will be my first RPM Fusion package (set), if accepted. However, I am a
sponsored packager for Fedora itself, I maintain congruity and gst-mixer there.
--
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, 3 months
[Bug 740] New: Review request: meka - Multi machine emulator for MS-DOS, MS-Windows and GNU/Linux
by RPM Fusion Bugzilla
http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=740
Summary: Review request: meka - Multi machine emulator for MS-
DOS, MS-Windows and GNU/Linux
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
http://www.webalice.it/musuruan/RPMS/reviews/meka.spec
http://www.webalice.it/musuruan/RPMS/reviews/meka-0.73-0.1.20080619.fc10....
* Description:
MEKA is a multi machine emulator, originally started as a Sega Master System
emulator, and generally very oriented toward Z80-based Sega 8-bit systems.
MEKA officially emulates the following systems:
- Sega Game 1000 / SG-1000 / Japan, Oceania
- Sega Computer 3000 / SC-3000 / Japan, Oceania, Europe
- Super Control Station / SF-7000 / Japan, Oceania, Europe
- Sega Mark III / MK3 / Japan
+ FM Unit Extension / MK3+FM / Japan
- Sega Master System / SMS / World Wide
- Sega Game Gear / GG / World Wide
- ColecoVision / COLECO / America, Europe
- Othello Multivision / OMV / Japan
You can play other systems on it only if you are smart enough to figure how.
And if you are, I doubt you will want to play Nintendo games. So forget it.
* Why this package is not eligible to be included in Fedora:
It requires ROMs (or image files in any format) of copyrighted material to be
useful and the owners of those copyrights and patents have not given their
express written permission.
* Rpmlint output:
meka.i386: W: invalid-license Distributable
meka.src: W: invalid-license Distributable
--
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, 4 months