[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, 11 months
[Bug 1573] New: Review request: wolf3d-shareware
by RPM Fusion Bugzilla
http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1573
Summary: Review request: wolf3d-shareware
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)gmail.com
CC: rpmfusion-package-review(a)rpmfusion.org
Depends on: 1572
Blocks: 2
Estimated Hours: 0.0
SPEC: http://jwrdegoede.danny.cz/wolf3d-shareware.spec
SRPM: http://jwrdegoede.danny.cz/wolf3d-shareware-1.4-1.fc14.src.rpm
description:
This package contains the shareware Episode of id Software's classic
first-person shooter Wolfenstein 3D.
Why not Fedora:
The license is non free (no commercial use clause, etc.)
rpmlint output (with remarks):
wolf3d-shareware.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) Wolfenstein ->
Wallenstein, Wittgenstein, Frankenstein
-ignore
wolf3d-shareware.src: W: invalid-license Shareware
-Yep, that is why it needs to go to rpmfusion nonfree and not Fedora
wolf3d-shareware.src: W: invalid-url Source0:
ftp://ftp.3drealms.com/share/1wolf14.zip <urlopen error ftp error: timed out>
-rpmlint sets the timeout too low
wolf3d-shareware.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) Wolfenstein ->
Wallenstein, Wittgenstein, Frankenstein
wolf3d-shareware.noarch: W: invalid-license Shareware
2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 5 warnings.
Is this your first rpmfusion package? :
No
--
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
[Bug 1572] New: Review request: wolf4sdl - SDL port of id Software's Wolfenstein 3D
by RPM Fusion Bugzilla
http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1572
Summary: Review request: wolf4sdl - SDL port of id Software's
Wolfenstein 3D
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)gmail.com
CC: rpmfusion-package-review(a)rpmfusion.org
Blocks: 2
Estimated Hours: 0.0
SPEC: http://jwrdegoede.danny.cz/wolf4sdl.spec
SRPM: http://jwrdegoede.danny.cz/wolf4sdl-1.6-1.fc14.src.rpm
description:
Maybe it was the fact that people got to blow away Nazis. Maybe it was the
sheer challenge of it all. For whatever reason, Wolfenstein 3D and Spear of
Destiny, pioneered the first-person shooter genre and brought its legendary
creators, id Software, worldwide notoriety and numerous awards. In fact, The
Computer Gaming World Hall of Fame recognized Wolfenstein 3D as helping to
shape the overall direction of the computer gaming industry.
Wolf4SDL is an open-source port of id Software's classic first-person shooter
Wolfenstein 3D to the cross-plattform multimedia library "Simple DirectMedia
Layer (SDL)" (http://www.libsdl.org). It is meant to keep the original feel
while taking advantage of some improvements.
Why not Fedora:
The license is non free (no commercial use clause, etc.)
rpmlint output (with remarks):
wolf4sdl.src: W: invalid-license Distributable
-Yep, that is why it needs to go to rpmfusion nonfree and not Fedora
wolf4sdl.src: W: patch-not-applied Patch0: 01-shareware-version.patch
wolf4sdl.src: W: patch-not-applied Patch6: Wolf4SDL-1.6-registered-apogee.patch
wolf4sdl.src: W: patch-not-applied Patch7: Wolf4SDL-1.6-spear.patch
wolf4sdl.src: W: patch-not-applied Patch8: Wolf4SDL-1.6-speardemo.patch
-These are applied one by one during %build to build different variants
wolf4sdl-debuginfo.x86_64: W: invalid-license Distributable
wolf4sdl-registered-apogee.x86_64: W: invalid-license Distributable
wolf4sdl-registered-id.x86_64: W: invalid-license Distributable
wolf4sdl-shareware.x86_64: W: invalid-license Distributable
wolf4sdl-spear.x86_64: W: invalid-license Distributable
wolf4sdl-spear-demo.x86_64: W: invalid-license Distributable
7 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 11 warnings.
Is this your first rpmfusion package? :
No
--
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
[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, 11 months
Using %filter_from_provides in RPM Fusion builds
by Göran Uddeborg
The way to filter out unwanted requirements nowdays is to use
%filter_from_requires according to
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:AutoProvidesAndRequiresFiltering
When I do my regular builds and mock builds this works fine. But when
I tried to do a plague build it fails:
error: line 28: Unknown tag: %filter_from_requires /perl(m2vmp2cut)/d
error: query of specfile m2vmp2cut.spec failed, can't parse
In my own environment, the macro is defined in
/usr/lib/rpm/redhat/macros, part of
redhat-rpm-config-9.1.0-5.fc14.noarch.
Is this my error? If so, what do I do wrong? Or is it something
broken in the build environment?
When doing the cvs-import I got a Python traceback, as just reported
in a separate mail. It does seem a bit far fetched that there would
be a connection between these two errors. But you never know!
13 years, 11 months
Python traceback when running cvs-import.sh
by Göran Uddeborg
When doing the cvs-import.sh step of m2vmp2cut, I got this Python
traceback during the process.
As far as I can tell, the check in itself has finished successfully.
but maybe something is wrong somewhere that I just haven't noticed
yet?
...
Checking in devel/m2vmp2cut.spec;
/cvs/free/rpms/m2vmp2cut/devel/m2vmp2cut.spec,v <-- m2vmp2cut.spec
initial revision: 1.1
done
RCS file: /cvs/free/rpms/m2vmp2cut/devel/m2vmp2cut.timestamps.patch,v
done
Checking in devel/m2vmp2cut.timestamps.patch;
/cvs/free/rpms/m2vmp2cut/devel/m2vmp2cut.timestamps.patch,v <-- m2vmp2cut.timestamps.patch
initial revision: 1.1
done
Checking in devel/sources;
/cvs/free/rpms/m2vmp2cut/devel/sources,v <-- sources
new revision: 1.2; previous revision: 1.1
done
Traceback (most recent call last):
File "/cvs/free/CVSROOT/getnotifylist", line 26, in ?
owners = owners.OwnerList(populate_all = 0)
File "/cvs/free/CVSROOT/owners.py", line 55, in __init__
self.populate_owners()
File "/cvs/free/CVSROOT/owners.py", line 146, in populate_owners
parse_file(self.owners_list)
File "/cvs/free/CVSROOT/owners.py", line 111, in parse_file
(product, component, desc, owner, qa, cclist) = l.split("|")
ValueError: need more than 5 values to unpack
Running syncmail...
Mailing rpmfusion-commits(a)lists.rpmfusion.org ...
....
13 years, 11 months
Handbrake possible new package
by gatlin sullivan
Handbrake (http://handbrake.fr/) is a utility to process and encode video (and
audio). It is supported for the new version of Gnome. It actively develops for
the GNU/Linux platform. A semi-nightly rpm release is made
(https://build.handbrake.fr/). There is a spec file listed in its source code
(http://trac.handbrake.fr/browser/trunk/gtk/ghb.spec). All of the source can be
found on its web-site (http://trac.handbrake.fr/browser). Detailed build
instruction (though slightly outdated) can be found documenting building,
specifically on GNU/Linux, for Fedora and Ubuntu
(http://trac.handbrake.fr/browser/trunk/doc/BUILD-Linux). It is licensed as GNU
GPL version 2 (http://trac.handbrake.fr/browser/trunk/COPYING).
If I attempt to package this after its 9.5 release - which should be relatively
soon and imminent - will it meet the requirements of Rpmfusion. I do know that
since it depends on certain things that are unpackageable for Fedora's
repositories that it will not be acceptable there. I, with rpmfusion
repositories installed plus libdvdcss, am able to install the semi-nightly
builds and use them. Thus, I believe that all of the
license inappropriate dependencies for Fedora must have been met by Rpmfusion. I
believe that packaging this and putting into Rpmfusion would be a great addition
to Fedora. I believe that most Fedora desktop users use Rpmfusion, so this as an
addition to Rpmfusion will really expand the presence of Handbrake for Fedora
user's to acquaint themselves.
13 years, 11 months
EL-6 packages missing?
by solarflow99
I noticed the builder didn't pull in some of the necessary packages,
is the EL-6 builder not complete?
Build Error (Job 8852): dosemu-1_4_0-8_1999svn_el6 on el-6-rpmfusion_free
ERROR: Bad build req: No Package Found for slang-devel. Exiting.
13 years, 11 months
