November 2011 - rpmfusion-developers

[Bug 476] Review request: blender-freeworld - Additional parts of blender not distributed in Fedora

by RPM Fusion Bugzilla

https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=476 --- Comment #54 from Kevin Kofler <kevin.kofler(a)chello.at> 2011-11-05 22:21:41 CET --- Actually, I see that Jochen Schmitt is still updating this package in Fedora. Jochen, are you still interested in this review? The SPEC and SRPM links are apparently no longer valid. -- Configure bugmail: https://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
0
0 / 0

[Bug 476] Review request: blender-freeworld - Additional parts of blender not distributed in Fedora

by RPM Fusion Bugzilla

https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=476 --- Comment #53 from Kevin Kofler <kevin.kofler(a)chello.at> 2011-11-05 22:17:14 CET --- Oh, and the submitter of this review request was also the Fedora maintainer of blender. It is generally a very good idea to have foo-freeworld in RPM Fusion maintained by the same people as foo in Fedora. Or at the very least the RPM Fusion maintainer should be on watchcommits and watchbugzilla for the Fedora package, like I am for freetype. -- Configure bugmail: https://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
0
0 / 0

[Bug 476] Review request: blender-freeworld - Additional parts of blender not distributed in Fedora

by RPM Fusion Bugzilla

https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=476 Kevin Kofler <kevin.kofler(a)chello.at> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |kevin.kofler(a)chello.at --- Comment #52 from Kevin Kofler <kevin.kofler(a)chello.at> 2011-11-05 22:15:17 CET --- > Instead of trying to package it as a diff against the Fedora version, which > means two different maintainers trying to stay in sync, why not just provide a > stand alone package with ffmpeg enabled and have it conflict with the Fedora > package? Because it is one of the core policies of RPM Fusion NOT to replace Fedora packages when it can be avoided, and I'd like it to stay that way. We should reuse the blender already packaged in Fedora and ship only the added stuff as an addon, as this review request proposes. This also ensures that bugs will usually only have to be fixed once, not twice. -- Configure bugmail: https://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
0
0 / 0

RPM Fusion (Fedora - nonfree) Package Build Report 2011-11-05

by rpmfusion-pkgs-report＠rpmfusion.org

============================================================================ Packages built and released for RPM Fusion (Fedora - nonfree) 15: 1 xorg-x11-drv-catalyst-11.9-3.fc15 ============================================================================ Changes in RPM Fusion (Fedora - nonfree) 15: xorg-x11-drv-catalyst-11.9-3.fc15 --------------------------------- * Fri Nov 04 2011 Nicolas Chauvet <kwizart(a)gmail.com> - 11.9-3 - Various fixes from rfbz#1965 - Ghost catalyst libraries directory in ld.so.conf.d

13 years

1
0
0 / 0

RPM Fusion (Fedora - nonfree) Package Build Report 2011-11-05

by rpmfusion-pkgs-report＠rpmfusion.org

============================================================================ Packages built and released for RPM Fusion (Fedora - nonfree) 15: 3 livna-config-display-0.0.24-2.fc15 rpmfusion-nonfree-package-config-smart-15-2 xorg-x11-drv-catalyst-11.9-2.fc15 ============================================================================ Packages built and released for RPM Fusion (Fedora - nonfree) testing/15: 7 broadcom-wl-5.100.82.38-1.fc15.1 catalyst-kmod-11.9-1.fc15.4 nvidia-173xx-kmod-173.14.31-1.fc15.6 nvidia-kmod-280.13-2.fc15.6 rpmfusion-nonfree-package-config-smart-15-3 wl-kmod-5.100.82.38-1.fc15.1 xorg-x11-drv-catalyst-11.9-3.fc15 ============================================================================ Packages built and released for RPM Fusion (Fedora - nonfree) development: 3 broadcom-wl-5.100.82.38-1.fc16.1 rpmfusion-nonfree-package-config-smart-16-3 wl-kmod-5.100.82.38-1.fc16.1 ============================================================================ Changes in RPM Fusion (Fedora - nonfree) 15: livna-config-display-0.0.24-2.fc15 ---------------------------------- * Fri Oct 28 2011 Stewart Adam <s.adam at diffingo.com> - 0.0.24-2 - Add patch to fix traceback on startup with recent Catalyst drivers rpmfusion-nonfree-package-config-smart-15-2 ------------------------------------------- * Wed Oct 26 2011 Nicolas Chauvet <kwizart(a)gmail.com> - 15-2 - Fix basearch on i386 - rfbz#2000 xorg-x11-drv-catalyst-11.9-2.fc15 --------------------------------- * Fri Oct 28 2011 Stewart Adam <s.adam at diffingo.com> 11.9-2 - Fix several packaging bugs (#1932, #1965) ============================================================================ Changes in RPM Fusion (Fedora - nonfree) testing/15: broadcom-wl-5.100.82.38-1.fc15.1 -------------------------------- * Sat Nov 05 2011 Nicolas Viéville <nicolas.vieville(a)univ-valenciennes.fr> - 5.100.82.38-1.1 - Rebuilt for F-15 * Fri Nov 04 2011 Nicolas Vieville <nicolas.vieville(a)univ-valenciennes.fr> - 5.100.82.38-1 - Updated version to 5.100.82.38 * Tue Feb 01 2011 Chris Nolan <chris(a)cenolan.com> - 5.60.48.36 - updated version to 5.100.82.38 catalyst-kmod-11.9-1.fc15.4 --------------------------- * Wed Nov 02 2011 Nicolas Chauvet <kwizart(a)gmail.com> - 11.9-1.4 - rebuild for updated kernel * Sun Oct 30 2011 Nicolas Chauvet <kwizart(a)gmail.com> - 11.9-1.3 - rebuild for updated kernel nvidia-173xx-kmod-173.14.31-1.fc15.6 ------------------------------------ * Wed Nov 02 2011 Nicolas Chauvet <kwizart(a)gmail.com> - 173.14.31-1.6 - rebuild for updated kernel * Sun Oct 30 2011 Nicolas Chauvet <kwizart(a)gmail.com> - 173.14.31-1.5 - rebuild for updated kernel nvidia-kmod-280.13-2.fc15.6 --------------------------- * Wed Nov 02 2011 Nicolas Chauvet <kwizart(a)gmail.com> - 1:280.13-2.6 - rebuild for updated kernel * Sun Oct 30 2011 Nicolas Chauvet <kwizart(a)gmail.com> - 1:280.13-2.5 - rebuild for updated kernel rpmfusion-nonfree-package-config-smart-15-3 ------------------------------------------- * Fri Nov 04 2011 Nicolas Chauvet <kwizart(a)gmail.com> - 15-3 - Fix version requirement for rpmfusion-free wl-kmod-5.100.82.38-1.fc15.1 ---------------------------- * Sat Nov 05 2011 Nicolas Viéville <nicolas.vieville(a)univ-valenciennes.fr> - 5.100.82.38-1.1 - Rebuilt for F-15 * Fri Nov 04 2011 Nicolas Vieville <nicolas.vieville(a)univ-valenciennes.fr> - 5.100.82.38-1 - Updated version to 5.100.82.38 * Wed Nov 02 2011 Nicolas Chauvet <kwizart(a)gmail.com> - 5.60.48.36-2.12 - rebuild for updated kernel * Sun Oct 30 2011 Nicolas Chauvet <kwizart(a)gmail.com> - 5.60.48.36-2.11 - rebuild for updated kernel xorg-x11-drv-catalyst-11.9-3.fc15 --------------------------------- * Fri Nov 04 2011 Nicolas Chauvet <kwizart(a)gmail.com> - 11.9-3 - Various fixes from rfbz#1965 - Ghost catalyst libraries directory in ld.so.conf.d ============================================================================ Changes in RPM Fusion (Fedora - nonfree) development: broadcom-wl-5.100.82.38-1.fc16.1 -------------------------------- * Sat Nov 05 2011 Nicolas Viéville <nicolas.vieville(a)univ-valenciennes.fr> - 5.100.82.38-1.1 - Rebuilt for F-16 * Fri Nov 04 2011 Nicolas Vieville <nicolas.vieville(a)univ-valenciennes.fr> - 5.100.82.38-1 - Updated version to 5.100.82.38 * Tue Feb 01 2011 Chris Nolan <chris(a)cenolan.com> - 5.60.48.36 - updated version to 5.100.82.38 rpmfusion-nonfree-package-config-smart-16-3 ------------------------------------------- * Fri Nov 04 2011 Nicolas Chauvet <kwizart(a)gmail.com> - 16-3 - Fix version requirement for rpmfusion-free wl-kmod-5.100.82.38-1.fc16.1 ---------------------------- * Sat Nov 05 2011 Nicolas Viéville <nicolas.vieville(a)univ-valenciennes.fr> - 5.100.82.38-1.1 - Rebuilt for F-16 * Fri Nov 04 2011 Nicolas Vieville <nicolas.vieville(a)univ-valenciennes.fr> - 5.100.82.38-1 - Updated version to 5.100.82.38 * Wed Nov 02 2011 Nicolas Chauvet <kwizart(a)gmail.com> - 5.60.48.36-2.12 - rebuild for updated kernel * Sun Oct 30 2011 Nicolas Chauvet <kwizart(a)gmail.com> - 5.60.48.36-2.11 - rebuild for updated kernel * Wed Oct 19 2011 Nicolas Chauvet <kwizart(a)gmail.com> - 5.60.48.36-2.10 - rebuild for updated kernel * Fri Oct 07 2011 Nicolas Chauvet <kwizart(a)gmail.com> - 5.60.48.36-2.9 - rebuild for updated kernel * Sat Sep 03 2011 Nicolas Chauvet <kwizart(a)gmail.com> - 5.60.48.36-2.8 - rebuild for updated kernel * Wed Aug 17 2011 Nicolas Chauvet <kwizart(a)gmail.com> - 5.60.48.36-2.7 - rebuild for updated kernel * Sun Jul 31 2011 Nicolas Chauvet <kwizart(a)gmail.com> - 5.60.48.36-2.6 - rebuild for updated kernel * Tue Jul 12 2011 Nicolas Chauvet <kwizart(a)gmail.com> - 5.60.48.36-2.5 - Rebuild for updated kernel * Wed Jun 15 2011 Thorsten Leemhuis <fedora [AT] leemhuis [DOT] info> - 5.60.48.36-2.4 - rebuild for updated kernel * Sat Jun 04 2011 Thorsten Leemhuis <fedora [AT] leemhuis [DOT] info> - 5.60.48.36-2.3 - rebuild for updated kernel * Sat May 28 2011 Thorsten Leemhuis <fedora [AT] leemhuis [DOT] info> - 5.60.48.36-2.2 - rebuild for updated kernel

13 years

1
0
0 / 0

RPM Fusion (Fedora - free) Package Build Report 2011-11-05

by rpmfusion-pkgs-report＠rpmfusion.org

============================================================================ Packages built and released for RPM Fusion (Fedora - free) testing/15: 1 libdvbpsi-0.2.2-1.fc15 ============================================================================ Packages built and released for RPM Fusion (Fedora - free) development: 2 libdvbpsi-0.2.2-1.fc16 xbmc-10.1-6.fc16 ============================================================================ Changes in RPM Fusion (Fedora - free) testing/15: libdvbpsi-0.2.2-1.fc15 ---------------------- * Sat Nov 05 2011 Nicolas Chauvet <kwizart(a)gmail.com> - 0.2.2-1 - Update to 0.2.2 ============================================================================ Changes in RPM Fusion (Fedora - free) development: libdvbpsi-0.2.2-1.fc16 ---------------------- * Sat Nov 05 2011 Nicolas Chauvet <kwizart(a)gmail.com> - 0.2.2-1 - Update to 0.2.2 xbmc-10.1-6.fc16 ---------------- * Sat Nov 05 2011 Alex Lancaster <alexlan[AT]fedoraproject org> - 10.1-6 - Disable using external ffmpeg for the moment, until such time as either we backport a fix for 0.8 ffmpeg or we build XBMC Eden (11.x) (see #1962) * Mon Sep 26 2011 Nicolas Chauvet <kwizart(a)gmail.com> - 10.1-5 - Rebuilt for FFmpeg-0.8

13 years

1
0
0 / 0

[Bug 476] Review request: blender-freeworld - Additional parts of blender not distributed in Fedora

by RPM Fusion Bugzilla

https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=476 --- Comment #51 from Richard <hobbes1069(a)gmail.com> 2011-11-05 14:51:17 CET --- I have a proposal. Comments welcome. Instead of trying to package it as a diff against the Fedora version, which means two different maintainers trying to stay in sync, why not just provide a stand alone package with ffmpeg enabled and have it conflict with the Fedora package? I already maintain my own blender package with the cycles rendering engine which I could submit, or I could submit the current 2.60a release. Richard -- Configure bugmail: https://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
0
0 / 0

[Bug 476] Review request: blender-freeworld - Additional parts of blender not distributed in Fedora

by RPM Fusion Bugzilla

https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=476 Alex Lancaster <alexl(a)users.sourceforge.net> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |NEW CC| |alexl(a)users.sourceforge.net Blocks|3 |2 AssignedTo|kwizart(a)gmail.com |rpmfusion-package-review@rp | |mfusion.org --- Comment #50 from Alex Lancaster <alexl(a)users.sourceforge.net> 2011-11-05 07:35:11 CET --- Resetting back to RF_NEW, since review appeared to have stalled over 1 year ago. -- Configure bugmail: https://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
0
0 / 0

[Bug 1453] Review Request: libaacs - Open implementation of AACS specification

by RPM Fusion Bugzilla

https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1453 Alex Lancaster <alexl(a)users.sourceforge.net> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Blocks|2 |3 AssignedTo|rpmfusion-package-review@rp |alexl(a)users.sourceforge.net |mfusion.org | --- Comment #12 from Alex Lancaster <alexl(a)users.sourceforge.net> 2011-11-05 07:29:54 CET --- Ok, so there are a couple of queries to fix: 1. the rpmlint warning 2. the _isa in the Requires for -devel (as identifed in comment #9). Everything else looks fine (build successfully in koji). Please post an updated .spec and I'll do a final check before approving. Here's the full review: Key: x = passed ? = needs work NA = not applicable to this package [ ? ] MUST: rpmlint must be run on the source rpm and all binary rpms the build produces. The output should be posted in the review.(refer to http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#rpmlint) # rpmlint libaacs-* libaacs.x86_64: W: shared-lib-calls-exit /usr/lib64/libaacs.so.0.0.0 exit(a)GLIBC_2.2.5 libaacs-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation Please investigate the shared-lib-call-exit error. The 'no-documentation' can be ignored. # rpmlint libaacs-0.2-0.1.20110925gite854d6673ad6c.fc14.src.rpm libaacs.src:15: W: macro-in-comment %{git_hash} libaacs.src:15: W: macro-in-comment %Y libaacs.src:15: W: macro-in-comment %m libaacs.src:15: W: macro-in-comment %d libaacs.src:15: W: macro-in-comment %{git_short} libaacs.src: W: invalid-url Source0: libaacs-20110925gite854d6673ad6c.tar.bz2 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 6 warnings. These can probably be ignored because they are needed to regenerate the source tarball [ x ] MUST: The package must be named according to the http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/NamingGuidelines [ x ] MUST: The spec file name must match the base package <code>%{name}</code>, in the format <code>%{name}.spec</code> unless your package has an exemption. (refer to http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/NamingGuidelines#Spec_file_name). [ x ] MUST: The package must meet the http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines. [ x ] MUST: The package must be licensed with a Fedora approved license and meet the http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/LicensingGuidelines. Yes: LGPLv2+. Headers show it is v2+, matching the license described. [ x ] MUST: The License field in the package spec file must match the actual license. (refer to http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/LicensingGuidelines#ValidLicenseS...) Yes: COPYING is LGPL [ x ] MUST: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the license(s) for the package must be included in <code>%doc</code>.(refer to http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/LicensingGuidelines#License Text) [ x ] MUST: The spec file must be written in American English. (refer to http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#summary) [ x ] MUST: The spec file for the package '''MUST''' be legible. (refer to http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Spec_Legibility) [ NA ] MUST: The sources used to build the package must match the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL. Reviewers should use md5sum for this task. If no upstream URL can be specified for this package, please see the http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/SourceURL for how to deal with this. N/A: Builds from a git snapshot [ x ] MUST: The package '''MUST''' successfully compile and build into binary rpms on at least one primary architecture. (refer to http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Architecture_Support) [ x ] MUST: If the package does not successfully compile, build or work on an architecture, then those architectures should be listed in the spec in <code>ExcludeArch</code>. Each architecture listed in <code>ExcludeArch</code> '''MUST''' have a bug filed in bugzilla, describing the reason that the package does not compile/build/work on that architecture. The bug number '''MUST''' be placed in a comment, next to the corresponding <code>ExcludeArch</code> line. (refer to http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Architecture_Build_Fai...) [ x ] MUST: All build dependencies must be listed in <code>BuildRequires</code>, except for any that are listed in the http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Exceptions_2 section of the Packaging Guidelines ; inclusion of those as <code>BuildRequires</code> is optional. Apply common sense. BuildRequires OK: Did a successful scratch build on koji: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=3490525 [ NA ] MUST: The spec file MUST handle locales properly. This is done by using the <code>%find_lang</code> macro. Using <code>%{_datadir}/locale/*</code> is strictly forbidden.(refer to http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Handling_Locale_Files) [ x ] MUST: Every binary RPM package (or subpackage) which stores shared library files (not just symlinks) in any of the dynamic linker's default paths, must call ldconfig in <code>%post</code> and <code>%postun</code>. (refer to http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Shared_Libraries) [ x ] MUST: Packages must NOT bundle copies of system libraries.(refer to http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Duplication_of_system_...) [ NA ] MUST: If the package is designed to be relocatable, the packager must state this fact in the request for review, along with the rationalization for relocation of that specific package. Without this, use of Prefix: /usr is considered a blocker. (refer to http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#RelocatablePackages) [ x ] MUST: A package must own all directories that it creates. If it does not create a directory that it uses, then it should require a package which does create that directory. (refer to http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#FileAndDirectoryOwnership) [ x ] MUST: A Fedora package must not list a file more than once in the spec file's %files listings. (Notable exception: license texts in specific situations)(refer to http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#DuplicateFiles) [ x ] MUST: Permissions on files must be set properly. Executables should be set with executable permissions, for example. (refer to http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#FilePermissions) [ x ] MUST: Each package must consistently use macros. (refer to http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#macros) [ x ] MUST: The package must contain code, or permissable content. (refer to http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#CodeVsContent) [ NA ] MUST: Large documentation files must go in a -doc subpackage. (The definition of large is left up to the packager's best judgement, but is not restricted to size. Large can refer to either size or quantity). (refer to http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#PackageDocumentation) [ x ] MUST: If a package includes something as %doc, it must not affect the runtime of the application. To summarize: If it is in %doc, the program must run properly if it is not present. (refer to http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#PackageDocumentation) [ x ] MUST: Header files must be in a -devel package. (refer to http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#DevelPackages) [ NA ] MUST: Static libraries must be in a -static package. (refer to http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#StaticLibraries) [ x ] MUST: If a package contains library files with a suffix (e.g. libfoo.so.1.1), then library files that end in .so (without suffix) must go in a -devel package. (refer to http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#DevelPackages) [ ? ] MUST: In the vast majority of cases, devel packages must require the base package using a fully versioned dependency: <code>Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} </code> (refer to http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#RequiringBasePackage) Please fix this as per comment #9. [ x ] MUST: Packages must NOT contain any .la libtool archives, these must be removed in the spec if they are built.(refer to http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#StaticLibraries) [ NA ] MUST: Packages containing GUI applications must include a %{name}.desktop file, and that file must be properly installed with desktop-file-install in the %install section. If you feel that your packaged GUI application does not need a .desktop file, you must put a comment in the spec file with your explanation. (refer to http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#desktop) [ x ] MUST: Packages must not own files or directories already owned by other packages. The rule of thumb here is that the first package to be installed should own the files or directories that other packages may rely upon. This means, for example, that no package in Fedora should ever share ownership with any of the files or directories owned by the <code>filesystem</code> or <code>man</code> package. If you feel that you have a good reason to own a file or directory that another package owns, then please present that at package review time. (refer to http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#FileAndDirectoryOwnership) [ x ] MUST: All filenames in rpm packages must be valid UTF-8. (refer to http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#FilenameEncoding) [ x ] SHOULD: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it. (refer to http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/LicensingGuidelines#License_Text) [ NA ] SHOULD: The description and summary sections in the package spec file should contain translations for supported Non-English languages, if available. (refer to http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#summary) [ x ] SHOULD: The reviewer should test that the package builds in mock. (refer to http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackageMaintainers/MockTricks) Done in koji build, see above. [ x ] SHOULD: The package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. (refer to http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#ArchitectureSupport) Done: see koji build. [ x ] SHOULD: The reviewer should test that the package functions as described. A package should not segfault instead of running, for example. Haven't been able to test as yet, no Blu-ray player. Not a blocker, however. [ x ] SHOULD: If scriptlets are used, those scriptlets must be sane. This is vague, and left up to the reviewers judgement to determine sanity. (refer to http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Scriptlets) They look OK (only ldconfig) [ NA ] SHOULD: Usually, subpackages other than devel should require the base package using a fully versioned dependency. (refer to http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#RequiringBasePackage) [ x ] SHOULD: The placement of pkgconfig(.pc) files depends on their usecase, and this is usually for development purposes, so should be placed in a -devel pkg. A reasonable exception is that the main pkg itself is a devel tool not installed in a user runtime, e.g. gcc or gdb. (refer to http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#PkgconfigFiles) Yes: .pc file is in -devel subpackage [ NA ] SHOULD: If the package has file dependencies outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, or /usr/sbin consider requiring the package which provides the file instead of the file itself. (refer to http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#FileDeps) [ NA ] SHOULD: your package should contain man pages for binaries/scripts. If it doesn't, work with upstream to add them where they make sense.(refer to http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Man_pages) -- Configure bugmail: https://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
0
0 / 0

[Bug 1453] Review Request: libaacs - Open implementation of AACS specification

by RPM Fusion Bugzilla

https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1453 --- Comment #11 from Alex Lancaster <alexl(a)users.sourceforge.net> 2011-11-05 06:53:13 CET --- OK, trying to get around to reviewing this, this weekend. Is this the latest version? -- Configure bugmail: https://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
0
0 / 0

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

rpmfusion-developers November 2011