[Bug 171] New: Review Request: rpmfusion-config-display - tool to manage proprietary graphic drivers
by RPM Fusion Bugzilla
http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=171
Summary: Review Request: rpmfusion-config-display - tool to
manage proprietary graphic drivers
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: 75
Estimated Hours: 0.0
SPEC:
http://downloads.diffingo.com/rpmfusion-config-display/rpmfusion-config-d...
SRPM:
http://downloads.diffingo.com/rpmfusion-config-display/rpmfusion-config-d...
Description:
rpmfusion-config-display is a graphical and command-line tool to manage the
various display drivers offered at the RPM Fusion repository. It configures the
X server configuration dynamically, allowing for autoselection of an
appropriate driver based on the installed hardware or manual override by the
user.
rpmlint output:
rpmfusion-config-display.noarch: W: service-default-enabled
/etc/rc.d/init.d/rpmfusion-config-display
rpmfusion-config-display.noarch: W: service-default-enabled
/etc/rc.d/init.d/rpmfusion-config-display
rpmfusion-config-display.noarch: E: subsys-not-used
/etc/rc.d/init.d/rpmfusion-config-display
These can be ignored since the we don't need a subsys, and the service should
be enabled by default.
Upgrade plan: Once rpmfusion-config-display has been implemented, it will
obsolete livna-config-display and allow for the parallel installation of
multiple drivers as well. The README.developers file contains information how
to create the a driver config file which enables rpmfusion-config-display to
configure the user's system for that driver.
--
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 1539] New: Review request: pithos - A Pandora client for the GNOME Desktop
by RPM Fusion Bugzilla
http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1539
Summary: Review request: pithos - A Pandora client for the GNOME
Desktop
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: silas(a)sewell.ch
CC: rpmfusion-package-review(a)rpmfusion.org
Blocks: 2
Estimated Hours: 0.0
SPEC:
https://github.com/silas/rpms/raw/master/pithos/pithos.spec
SRPM:
https://github.com/downloads/silas/rpms/pithos-0.3.6-1.fc14.src.rpm
Description:
Pithos is a Pandora client for the GNOME Desktop. The official Flash-based
client is a CPU hog, and Pianobar is a great reverse-engineered implementation,
but is command-line only. Neither integrate with the desktop very well, missing
things like media key support and song notifications.
Why Not Fedora:
Requires gstreamer-plugins-bad.
Rpmlint:
pithos.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary pithos
- Desktop application
pithos.src:9: W: macro-in-comment %{version}
pithos.src:10: W: macro-in-comment %{version}
pithos.src:10: W: macro-in-comment %{version}
- This is fine
pithos.src: W: no-cleaning-of-buildroot %install
pithos.src: W: no-cleaning-of-buildroot %clean
pithos.src: W: no-buildroot-tag
pithos.src: W: no-%clean-section
- Legacy warnings
pithos.src: W: invalid-url Source0: pithos-0.3.6.tar.gz
- No archive download I could find, checked out using bzr (see comment)
First RPM Fusion package?
- Yes
--
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
Fwd: [ATrpms-users] Problems since installing nVidia 285.05.09 on f14 x86_64
by Richard Shaw
Looks like we need to stay way from the 285 series for now.
Richard
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Gabe Rubin <gaberubin(a)gmail.com>
Date: Fri, Oct 28, 2011 at 12:55 PM
Subject: Re: [ATrpms-users] Problems since installing nVidia 285.05.09
on f14 x86_64
To: "User discussion about ATrpms.net" <atrpms-users(a)atrpms.net>
On Fri, Oct 28, 2011 at 2:39 AM, John Pilkington <J.Pilk(a)tesco.net> wrote:
> I installed this earlier this week, along with new kdelibs packages and a
> few others; the system has had problems since then and I've reverted to
> 280.13. It feels happier but not enough experience with it yet to be sure
> that the new driver is the culprit.
>
> The hardware is a GeForce 7500 LE, so not VDPAU capable. Effects seen were
> segfaults in Mythfrontend while using the cutpoint editor, uncertain start
> of playback with occasional segfaults, and finally inability to do more than
> load the unwritten frontend screen before segfaulting. Before the changes
> earlier this week the system had been generally troublefree.
>
> John P
As another message I cross-posted from the mythtv list confirms, I had
major issues with this new driver. I could not log in remotely,
mythbackend was segfaulting, other stability issues. 285.05.09 does
not seem ready for prime time.
_______________________________________________
atrpms-users mailing list
atrpms-users(a)atrpms.net
http://lists.atrpms.net/mailman/listinfo/atrpms-users
13 years, 1 month
Building kmod/akmod package spec file question
by Nicolas Viéville
Hello list,
For my first participation in packaging, I'm trying to make a spec file
for the 5.100.82.38 wl-kmod package in F-15. While the review process I
had a question about building the akmod package and how to proceed.
After reading:
- http://rpmfusion.org/Packaging/KernelModules/Akmods
- http://rpmfusion.org/Packaging/KernelModules/Kmods1
- http://rpmfusion.org/Packaging/KernelModules/Kmods2
I've set the "buildforkernels" macros section of the spec file to:
#define buildforkernels newest
%define buildforkernels current
#define buildforkernels akmods
This make the new akmod package built for the current kernel. Once the
akmod package built, if I correctly understood the documentation, I have
to revert it to:
%define buildforkernels newest
#define buildforkernels current
#define buildforkernels akmods
This have to be kept until the next new upstream release of the wl-kmod
needs an new akmod package to be built.
In other words, if I understand correctly the documentation, maintaining
kmod/akmod package involves providing two versions of the spec file in
the beginning of the process: first one (buildforkernels = current) to
build also the akmod package with the kmods ones, and second one
(buildforkernels = newest) to build new kmods for new kernels when
necessary. Every time a new upstream version of the module will be
released, it is necessary to repeat the two steps described above.
Thanks for commenting this if I've misunderstood the documentation.
Cordially,
--
Nicolas Viéville
13 years, 1 month
[Bug 1999] New: Review Request: wl-kmod - Kernel module for Broadcom wireless devices
by RPM Fusion Bugzilla
http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1999
Summary: Review Request: wl-kmod - Kernel module for Broadcom
wireless devices
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: nicolas.vieville(a)univ-valenciennes.fr
CC: rpmfusion-package-review(a)rpmfusion.org
Depends on: 1907
Estimated Hours: 0.0
SPEC: http://dl.dropbox.com/u/25699833/rpmfusion/wl-kmod/wl-kmod.spec
SRPMS:
http://dl.dropbox.com/u/25699833/rpmfusion/wl-kmod/wl-kmod-5.100.82.38-1....
Description: These packages contain Broadcom's IEEE 802.11a/b/g/n hybrid Linux
device driver for use with Broadcom's BCM4311-, BCM4312-, BCM4313-, BCM4321-,
BCM4322-, BCM43224-, and BCM43225-, BCM43227- and BCM43228-based hardware.
$ rpmlint rpmbuild/SPECS/wl-kmod.spec
0 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.
$ rpmlint rpmbuild/SRPMS/wl-kmod-5.100.82.38-1.fc15.src.rpm
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.
$ rpmlint rpmbuild/RPMS/x86_64/kmod-wl-5.100.82.38-1.fc15.x86_64.rpm
kmod-wl.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) Metapackage -> Meta package,
Meta-package, Prepackage
kmod-wl.x86_64: W: no-documentation
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings.
$ rpmlint
rpmbuild/RPMS/x86_64/kmod-wl-2.6.40.6-0.fc15.x86_64-5.100.82.38-1.fc15.x86_64.rpm
kmod-wl-2.6.40.6-0.fc15.x86_64.x86_64: W: summary-not-capitalized C wl kernel
module(s) for 2.6.40.6-0.fc15.x86_64
kmod-wl-2.6.40.6-0.fc15.x86_64.x86_64: W: unstripped-binary-or-object
/lib/modules/2.6.40.6-0.fc15.x86_64/extra/wl/wl.ko
kmod-wl-2.6.40.6-0.fc15.x86_64.x86_64: W: no-documentation
kmod-wl-2.6.40.6-0.fc15.x86_64.x86_64: E: kernel-modules-not-in-kernel-packages
/lib/modules/2.6.40.6-0.fc15.x86_64/extra/wl/wl.ko
kmod-wl-2.6.40.6-0.fc15.x86_64.x86_64: E: kernel-modules-not-in-kernel-packages
/lib/modules/2.6.40.6-0.fc15.x86_64/extra/wl
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 2 errors, 3 warnings.
$ rpmlint rpmbuild/RPMS/x86_64/wl-kmod-debuginfo-5.100.82.38-1.fc15.x86_64.rpm
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.
This package is an upgrade from the actual wl-kmod-5.60.48.36-2.fc15.9.src
originally provided in FC-15 to the 5.100.82.38 version.
This version is not the very last one (ie 5.100.82.111) because there seems to
have some difficulties with it.
Even if the 5.100.82.111 package build correctly, kernel panic happened when I
tried it on FC-15-x86_64 and according to this thread
http://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=19514 others distributions have the
same problems. Broadcom needs probably to fix this last version.
So, I preferred to keep the 5.100.82.38 version as this one is working for me
from march 2011 and FC-14 to FC-15 today.
The spec file is largely inspired by the rpmfusion wl-kmod for FC-14 and FC-15
ones.
The errors reported by rpmlint are the same as the previous versions of this
package and seems to be related to kmodtool "magic". Comments on this point
would be precious for me.
Since Broadcom doesn't provide anymore the original sources files on its site,
I had to upload the copy I had on a DropBox share and provide direct links in
the spec file. I don't know if this is correct.
This review request comes after this bug report:
https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1907
I'm a newcomer in such things and not very familiar with packaging, but I'm
volunteer for this package.
Same request made for the broadcom-wl 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, 1 month
[Bug 1998] New: Review Request: broadcom-wl - Common files for Broadcom 802.11 STA driver
by RPM Fusion Bugzilla
http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1998
Summary: Review Request: broadcom-wl - Common files for Broadcom
802.11 STA driver
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: nicolas.vieville(a)univ-valenciennes.fr
CC: rpmfusion-package-review(a)rpmfusion.org
Depends on: 1907
Estimated Hours: 0.0
SPEC: http://dl.dropbox.com/u/25699833/rpmfusion/broadcom-wl/broadcom-wl.spec
SRPMS:
http://dl.dropbox.com/u/25699833/rpmfusion/broadcom-wl/broadcom-wl-5.100....
Description: This package contains the license, README.txt and configuration
files for the Broadcom 802.11 Linux STA Driver for WiFi, a Linux
device driver for use with Broadcom's BCM4311-, BCM4312-, BCM4313-,
BCM4321-, BCM4322-, BCM43224-, and BCM43225-, BCM43227- and
BCM43228-based hardware.
$ rpmlint rpmbuild/SPECS/broadcom-wl.spec
0 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.
$ rpmlint rpmbuild/SRPMS/broadcom-wl-5.100.82.38-1.fc15.src.rpm
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.
This package is an upgrade from the actual broadcom-wl-5.60.48.36-1.fc13.src
originally provided in FC-15 to the 5.100.82.38 version.
This version is not the very last one (ie 5.100.82.111) because there seems to
have some difficulties with it.
Even if the 5.100.82.111 package build correctly, kernel panic happened when I
tried it on FC-15-x86_64 and according to this thread
http://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=19514 others distributions have the
same problems. Broadcom needs probably to fix this last version.
So, I preferred to keep the 5.100.82.38 version as this one is working for me
from march 2011 and FC-14 to FC-15 today.
The spec file is largely inspired by the rpmfusion broadcom-wl for FC-14 one.
Since Broadcom doesn't provide anymore the original sources files on its site,
I had to upload the copy I had on a DropBox share and provide direct links in
the spec file. I don't know if this is correct.
This review request comes after this bug report:
https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1907
I'm a newcomer in such things and not very familiar with packaging, but I'm
volunteer for this package.
Same request made for the wl-kmod 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, 1 month
glibc bug #747377
by Kevin Kofler
Hi,
this bug in the glibc headers:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=747377
can potentially crash almost any program built against it. So far, only git
is KNOWN to crash, but other software might be affected in unknown ways.
Fedora Release Engineering is rebuilding all the packages in Fedora which
were built against the faulty glibc.
These glibc builds are affected:
* glibc-2.14.90-11, testing only, possibly affected
* glibc-2.14.90-12, testing only, possibly affected
* glibc-2.14.90-12.999, stable from 2011-10-19 to 20, definitely affected
* glibc-2.14.90-13, stable since 2011-10-20, definitely affected
These glibc builds are NOT affected:
* glibc-2.14.90-14, now pending
* glibc-2.14.90-10, stable until 2011-10-19
* everything older than glibc-2.14.90-10
Several RPM Fusion packages are affected by this. In particular, my
freetype-freeworld-2.4.6-2.fc16 build had glibc-2.14.90-13 in the buildroot
and is definitely affected. But a bunch of other packages has been built
recently as well.
Another problem is that the fix:
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/glibc-2.14.90-14
is still pending, so anything built now against the stable F16 (or right
now, even updates-testing) WILL STILL BE BROKEN! Unless we somehow pull the
fixed glibc manually into our buildroots. (So please DO NOT start issuing
rebuilds right now, it won't help.)
Kevin Kofler
13 years, 1 month
CVS access probably blocked
by Nicolas Viéville
Hello list,
As a newcomer, I've tried to setup my account on fas.rpmfusion.org, and
uploaded my RSA public key. After a few tries to connect to the CVS,
making mistakes before getting the right method, it seems that my
account is blocked.
With environment variables set like this :
export CVSROOT=:ext:nvieville@cvs.rpmfusion.org:/cvs/nonfree
export CVS_RSH=ssh
Here's what "cvs co common" print:
ssh_exchange_identification: Connection closed by remote host
cvs [checkout aborted]: end of file from server (consult above messages
if any)
and if I try "ssh -v nvieville(a)cvs.rpmfusion.org" I get:
OpenSSH_5.6p1, OpenSSL 1.0.0e-fips 6 Sep 2011
debug1: Reading configuration data /home/nico/.ssh/config
debug1: Reading configuration data /etc/ssh/ssh_config
debug1: Applying options for *
debug1: Connecting to cvs.rpmfusion.org [195.10.6.64] port 22.
debug1: Connection established.
debug1: identity file /home/nico/.ssh/id_rsa type 1
debug1: identity file /home/nico/.ssh/id_rsa-cert type -1
debug1: identity file /home/nico/.ssh/id_dsa type 2
debug1: identity file /home/nico/.ssh/id_dsa-cert type -1
ssh_exchange_identification: Connection closed by remote host
To finish "ssh -v -i ~/.ssh/id_rsa nvieville(a)cvs.rpmfusion.org" gives :
OpenSSH_5.6p1, OpenSSL 1.0.0e-fips 6 Sep 2011
debug1: Reading configuration data /home/nico/.ssh/config
debug1: Reading configuration data /etc/ssh/ssh_config
debug1: Applying options for *
debug1: Connecting to cvs.rpmfusion.org [195.10.6.64] port 22.
debug1: Connection established.
debug1: identity file /home/nico/.ssh/id_rsa type 1
debug1: identity file /home/nico/.ssh/id_rsa-cert type -1
ssh_exchange_identification: Connection closed by remote host
So, I would be grateful if someone could unblock this situation, or
could point me to the mistakes I've done.
For information, if necessary, my actual IP and my login name on fas:
78.216.52.19
nvieville
Thanks in advance for your response.
Cordially,
--
Nicolas Viéville
13 years, 1 month
[Bug 1943] New: Review request: Butt - Broadcast using this tool to Icecast or Shoutcast servers
by RPM Fusion Bugzilla
http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1943
Summary: Review request: Butt - Broadcast using this tool to
Icecast or Shoutcast servers
Product: Package Reviews
Version: Current
Platform: All
URL: http://sourceforge.net/projects/butt/
OS/Version: GNU/Linux
Status: NEW
Severity: normal
Priority: P5
Component: Review Request
AssignedTo: rpmfusion-package-review(a)rpmfusion.org
ReportedBy: s.baus86(a)gmx.net
CC: rpmfusion-package-review(a)rpmfusion.org
Blocks: 2,30
Estimated Hours: 0.0
Link:
SRPM: http://dl.dropbox.com/u/3351272/Stuff/butt-0.1.12-1.fc14.src.rpm
SPEC: http://dl.dropbox.com/u/3351272/Stuff/butt.spec
%description
This program is used for broadcasting to Icecast or Shoutcast servers.
It can record from alsa,oss or pulseaudio sources.
You can also record to a file.
[makerpm@Sven SPECS]$ rpmlint butt.spec
../RPMS/x86_64/butt-0.1.12-1.fc14.x86_64.rpm
../SRPMS/butt-0.1.12-1.fc14.src.rpm
butt.spec:36: W: configure-without-libdir-spec
Can be ignored, because not supported by configure.
butt.x86_64: I: enchant-dictionary-not-found en_US
Ignored because not understood.
butt.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary butt
Ignored because no manual available.
butt.src:36: W: configure-without-libdir-spec
Can be ignored, because not supported by configure.
2 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 3 warnings.
Why not in Fedora:
mp3 support and therefore depency to liblame.
This is my first rpmfusion rpm and also my first rpm I have ever build. I'm
seeking a sponsor.
--
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
Newcomer
by Nicolas Viéville
Hello List,
I'm a newcomer to this list. My native language is french, so forgive me
if my English is not correct at all. I'm also a newcomer to the
packaging activity by becoming the co-maintainer of Sinha Ankur on
broadcom-wl and wl-kmod packages for Fedora 15. As suggested on the
contributors page of the RPMFusion site, here's the thread containing
the package change request:
https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1907)
As a newcomer, I need someone to sponsor me to this new activity. Maybe
my co-maintainer could accept to do so. Thanks in advance for sponsoring
me.
I will certainly have a few naive questions to ask after reading the
documentation on setting-up my environment to begin to contribute, most
probably on the ssh/cvs-connection part. Thanks in advance for your
advice.
All questions or comments on this subject are welcome.
Cordially,
--
Nicolas Viéville
13 years, 1 month