[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, 3 months
[Bug 1034] New: Review request: sinthgunt - An easy to use GUI for ffmpeg
by RPM Fusion Bugzilla
http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1034
Summary: Review request: sinthgunt - An easy to use GUI for
ffmpeg
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: jfsaucier(a)infoglobe.ca
CC: rpmfusion-package-review(a)rpmfusion.org
Blocks: 2,30
Estimated Hours: 0.0
Spec URL: http://rpms.infoglobe.ca/packages/sinthgunt.spec
SRPM URL: http://rpms.infoglobe.ca/packages/sinthgunt-2.0.2-1.fc12.src.rpm
Description:
Sinthgunt is an open source graphical user interface for ffmpeg, a computer
program that can convert digital audio and video into numerous formats.
Using pre-configured conversion settings, it makes the task of converting
between different media formates very easy.
This package is not eligible in Fedora because it depends on ffmpeg from
rpmfusion-free repository.
$ rpmlint -v SPECS/sinthgunt.spec
0 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.
$ rpmlint -v SRPMS/sinthgunt-2.0.2-1.fc12.src.rpm
sinthgunt.src: I: checking
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.
$ rpmlint -v RPMS/noarch/sinthgunt-2.0.2-1.fc12.noarch.rpm
sinthgunt.noarch: I: checking
sinthgunt.noarch: E: non-executable-script
/usr/lib/python2.6/site-packages/Sinthgunt/app.py 0644 /usr/bin/python
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 0 warnings.
I think the only error is a false positive because app.py doesn't need to be
executable by itself.
This is my first submitted package for RPM Fusion and I need a sponsor. I'm not
currently sponsored in Fedora neither but I have submitted 2 packages for
review.
--
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
[Bug 562] New: Review request: catalyst-kmod - AMD display driver kernel module
by RPM Fusion Bugzilla
http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=562
Summary: Review request: catalyst-kmod - AMD display driver
kernel module
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: s.adam(a)diffingo.com
CC: rpmfusion-package-review(a)rpmfusion.org
Blocks: 2
Estimated Hours: 1.0
Description:
The catalyst 9.4 display driver kernel module.
SPEC: http://downloads.diffingo.com/rpmfusion/catalyst-kmod.spec
SRPM: http://downloads.diffingo.com/rpmfusion/catalyst-kmod-9.4-1.fc10.src.rpm
rpmlint output:
akmod-catalyst.x86_64: W: no-documentation
kmod-catalyst-2.6.27.19-170.2.35.fc10.x86_64.x86_64: W: no-documentation
kmod-catalyst.x86_64: W: no-documentation
> No documentation needs to be included in these packages
kmod-catalyst-2.6.27.19-170.2.35.fc10.x86_64.x86_64: W: summary-not-capitalized
catalyst kernel module(s) for 2.6.27.19-170.2.35.fc10.x86_64
> due to kmodtool
kmod-catalyst-2.6.27.19-170.2.35.fc10.x86_64.x86_64: W:
filename-too-long-for-joliet
kmod-catalyst-2.6.27.19-170.2.35.fc10.x86_64-9.4-1.fc10.x86_64.rpm
> Not a big deal: the file can be renamed if it's going to be used on Joliet-formatted media.
kmod-catalyst-2.6.27.19-170.2.35.fc10.x86_64.x86_64: W:
unstripped-binary-or-object
/lib/modules/2.6.27.19-170.2.35.fc10.x86_64/extra/catalyst/fglrx.ko
> Set this intentionally as part of the debuginfo workaround: sed -i -e 's|strict=true|strict=false|' find-debuginfo.sh
--
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
[Bug 582] New: Review Request: libtxc_dxtn - S3 Texture Compression support libraries for Mesa
by RPM Fusion Bugzilla
http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=582
Summary: Review Request: libtxc_dxtn - S3 Texture Compression
support libraries for Mesa
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: andreas(a)bawue.net
CC: rpmfusion-package-review(a)rpmfusion.org
Blocks: 2
Estimated Hours: 0.0
SRPM:
http://home.bawue.de/~ixs/libtxc_dxtn/libtxc_dxtn-0.0.0.070518-1.fc7.src.rpm
SPEC: http://home.bawue.de/~ixs/libtxc_dxtn/libtxc_dxtn.spec
Description:
S3 Texture Compression (S3TC) (sometimes also called DXTn or DXTC) is a group
of related lossy image compression algorithms originally developed by S3
Graphics, Ltd.
Currently, s3tc is supported by libtxc_dxtn on all graphic cards which use the
radeon, r200, i830 and i915 driver. Other DRI drivers are not supported, even
if the hardware could do it, at least not until someone writes the code for it.
Not eligible for fedora:
S3TC is patented.
rpmlint:
[andreas@workstation result]$ rpmlint -v *.rpm
libtxc_dxtn.i586: I: checking
libtxc_dxtn.i586: W: no-soname /usr/lib/libtxc_dxtn.so
libtxc_dxtn.src: I: checking
libtxc_dxtn-debuginfo.i586: I: checking
3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings.
no-soname is a shame, but I didn't want to meddle with upstream code as the
version number is horrible anyway.
--
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
libbluray / libaacs / libbdplus
by Xavier Bachelot
Hi,
libbluray is a library to access Blu-Ray disks for video playback. It is
licensed under the LGPL and as such should be fine for Fedora.
http://www.videolan.org/developers/libbluray.html
However, this will only work with blurays not protected with either AACS
or BD+. The libraries that allow to play protected blurays are libaacs
and libbdplus, which can be dlopen'ed by libbluray if present. These
libraries don't provide the keys needed to allow decryption, the keys
file needs to be fetched elsewhere. These 2 libraries are licensed under
LGPL too. Would these 2 libraries be allowed into RPM Fusion or is this
materials for Livna ? This is only a theoretical question for now, as
libaacs and libbdplus are not yet public but should be soon, but I
thought it might worth discuss that before, given the fair amount of
discussion it took to agree on what to do with libdvdcss.
Regards,
Xavier
13 years, 6 months
