[Bug 2577] New: Review request: pithos - A native Linux client for Pandora
by RPM Fusion Bugzilla
https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2577
Bug #: 2577
Summary: Review request: pithos - A native Linux client for
Pandora
Classification: Unclassified
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: greg.hellings(a)gmail.com
CC: rpmfusion-package-review(a)rpmfusion.org
Spec file: http://dl.thehellings.com/pithos/pithos.spec
SRPM file: http://dl.thehellings.com/pithos/pithos-20121123-1.fc17.src.rpm
Description: Pithos is a native Pandora Radio client for Linux. It's much more
lightweight than the Pandora.com web client, and integrates with desktop
features such as media keys, notifications, and the sound menu.
Ineligible for Fedora: relies on gstreamer-plugins-bad for codecs which are no
provided in gstreamer-plugins-bad-free
$ rpmlint results_pithos/20121123/1.fc17/pithos-20121123-1.fc17.*rpm
pithos.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary pithos
pithos.src: W: invalid-url Source0: pithos-20121123.tar.xz
2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings.
no-manual-page-for-binary pithos --- Ignored because none is provided by
upstream
invalid-url Source0 --- Ignored because upstream does not make tarball releases
This is my first RPM Fusion package. I am a Fedora packager.
--
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.
10 years, 8 months
[Bug 2803] New: Review request: opencv - Collection of algorithms for computer vision
by RPM Fusion Bugzilla
https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2803
Bug #: 2803
Summary: Review request: opencv - Collection of algorithms for
computer vision
Classification: Unclassified
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: sanjay.ankur(a)gmail.com
CC: rpmfusion-package-review(a)rpmfusion.org
SPEC/SRPM:
http://ankursinha.fedorapeople.org/opencv-rpmfusion/opencv.spec
http://ankursinha.fedorapeople.org/opencv-rpmfusion/opencv-2.4.4-3.fc20.s...
Description:
OpenCV means Intel® Open Source Computer Vision Library. It is a collection of
C functions and a few C++ classes that implement some popular Image Processing
and Computer Vision algorithms.
fas username: ankursinha (package maintainer)
This package includes only the nonfree and gpu shared objects that aren't
available in the fedora package. I haven't been able to build the CUDA related
stuff yet.
It's my first rpmfusion package :)
[ankur@ankur-pc SRPMS]$ rpmlint
/var/lib/mock/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/result/*.rpm ../SPECS/opencv.spec
./opencv-2.4.4-3.fc19.src.rpm
opencv-free.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) Nonfree -> Non free,
Non-free, Freon
opencv-free.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US nonfree -> non
free, non-free, Freon
opencv-free.x86_64: W: no-documentation
opencv-free-devel.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) Nonfree -> Non free,
Non-free, Freon
opencv-free-devel.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US nonfree ->
non free, non-free, Freon
opencv-free-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation
opencv-nonfree.x86_64: W: no-documentation
opencv-nonfree-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation
opencv.src: W: invalid-url Source0:
http://downloads.sourceforge.net/opencvlibrary/OpenCV-2.4.4a.tar.bz2 timed out
7 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 9 warnings.
[ankur@ankur-pc SRPMS]$
--
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.
10 years, 9 months
[Bug 2455] New: Review request: pcsx2 - A Sony Playstation2 emulator
by RPM Fusion Bugzilla
https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2455
Bug #: 2455
Summary: Review request: pcsx2 - A Sony Playstation2 emulator
Classification: Unclassified
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: gbirchley(a)blueyonder.co.uk
CC: rpmfusion-package-review(a)rpmfusion.org
The SPEC file and SRPM of this package are available at the following URLs (the
files are compressed as tarballs to upload to forum)-
SRPM: http://forums.pcsx2.net/attachment.php?aid=39887
SPEC - http://forums.pcsx2.net/attachment.php?aid=39888
Description: PCSX2 is an open source Playstation 2 emulator. It requires a dump
of a real Playstation 2 BIOS, which is not included.
Why this package is not eligible to be included in Fedora: Fedora does not
allow emulators
The output rpmlint gives on both the source and binary packages:
$ rpmlint pcsx2-1.0-2.fc16.src.rpm
pcsx2.src:23: E: buildarch-instead-of-exclusivearch-tag i686
[Comment: needs i686 packages to compile, will run in x86_64]
pcsx2.src: W: invalid-url Source0:
http://pcsx2.googlecode.com/svn/branches/1.0/pcsx2-1.0.tar.gz HTTP Error 404:
Not Found
[Comment: Compiled from subversion - have included shell script to build a
tarball as a source and instructions for in comments]
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 1 warnings.
$ rpmlint pcsx2-1.0-2.fc16.i686.rpm
pcsx2.i686: W: no-manual-page-for-binary pcsx2_ZZCGReplayLoader
[Comment:this is a debugging tool as pcsx2 is a WIP. Will help development to
include this package, so users can follow debug insructions from developers but
no man page available]
pcsx2.i686: W: no-manual-page-for-binary pcsx2_ZZReplayLoader
[Comment:ditto above comment]
pcsx2.i686: W: no-manual-page-for-binary pcsx2_GSReplayLoader
[Comment:ditto above comment]
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 3 warnings.
This is my first RPM fusion package. It is built with the help of a packager on
fedora forums - I am a packaging novice - and then maintained by me on the
fedora forum for about a year]
I am seeking a sponsor.
--
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.
10 years, 11 months
[Bug 2857] New: Review request: xine-lib 1.2 - A multimedia engine
by RPM Fusion Bugzilla
https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2857
Bug #: 2857
Summary: Review request: xine-lib 1.2 - A multimedia engine
Classification: Unclassified
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: xavier(a)bachelot.org
CC: rpmfusion-package-review(a)rpmfusion.org
xine-lib is currently stuck at branch 1.1 in Fedora. The current main branch is
1.2, and 1.1 will likely be deprecated by upstream in the not too distant
future, and will not receive updates, including security ones, hence it would
be wise to move to the 1.2 branch for Fedora 20.
Currently, xine-lib is in Fedora, with all the possibly patent encumbered bits
split into xine-lib-extras-freeworld in RPM Fusion. However, with xine-lib 1.2
such a split is now longer possible, because ffmpeg is now needed to build
xine-lib. According to current xine-lib maintainer there are 4 possible ways
forward:
(a) Stick with 1.1.x forever.
(b) Package libavutil (and only libavutil) from FFmpeg in Fedora.
(c) Bundle parts or all of libavutil with xine-lib.
(d) Move the whole thing (back) to RPM Fusion (where it originally was, before
xine-lib was needed for Amarok and Phonon, which both no longer use it).
This package review is for solution d. It merges Fedora's xine-lib spec with
RPM Fusion's xine-lib-extras-freeworld. Hopefully, I got everything right, but
the changes are big enough it worth having it fully reviewed.
Spec : http://www.bachelot.org/fedora/SPECS/xine-lib.spec
SRPM : http://www.bachelot.org/fedora/SRPMS/xine-lib-1.2.3-1.fc20.src.rpm
--
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.
11 years, 1 month
Moving xine-lib and dependent apps to RPM Fusion Free for F17?
by Kevin Kofler
Hi,
the current xine-lib maintainer speaking. :-)
The Xine project:
http://www.xine-project.org/home
has recently released a new major version, version 1.2.0.
Unfortunately, among the list of changes:
http://sourceforge.net/projects/xine/files/xine-lib/1.2.0/README.txt.asc/...
there are these new "features":
* Use libavutil-provided implementations for CRC, SHA1 and BASE64 algorithms,
this makes use of libavutil even outside the FFmpeg decoding plugin,
but avoid duplication of algorithms between different plugins.
* Use av_mallocz() when xine_xmalloc_aligned() wouldn't be needed.
* FFmpeg is now required as an external dependency; if you want to build
xine-lib from source, please download a copy of FFmpeg from their SVN
server.
which basically mean that xine-lib now has a global, non-optional dependency
on FFmpeg's libavutil library.
So there are 4 possible ways forward:
(a) Stick with 1.1.x forever. I don't think that's a good idea in the long
run, upstream won't be providing security fixes for the old branch forever.
(b) Package libavutil (and only libavutil) from FFmpeg in Fedora. (I don't
think libavutil, as opposed to libavcodec, is actually patent-encumbered,
though that'd also have to be checked.) The issue there is that FFmpeg
upstream obviously doesn't support this. It would need some more black
packaging magic of the kind already done in xine-lib, and more legal
auditing. I don't think I want to investigate going down that road.
(c) Bundle parts or all of libavutil with xine-lib. Yuck!!!
(d) Move the whole thing (back) to RPM Fusion (where it originally was, before
we started needing xine-lib for Amarok and Phonon, which both no longer
use it). It would go to the Free section, of course.
My proposal is to go with (d).
The following packages currently depend on xine-lib:
* gxine
* (k9copy – already in RPM Fusion, not affected)
* kaffeine (my package, the reason why I maintain xine-lib in the first place)
* oxine
* xine-plugin
* xine-ui
These packages would have to move to RPM Fusion along with xine-lib.
In Kaffeine's case, upstream is switching from xine-lib to MPlayer in their git
repository, so it will likely have to move to RPM Fusion sooner or later
anyway. This means the affected packages are basically *xine*.
So my plan is to retire (for my packages, resp. have the respective maintainer
retire) the listed packages in Fedora for Fedora ≥ 17 and get (or have the
respective maintainer get) them into RPM Fusion Free instead. (I'd take care
of xine-lib and kaffeine myself, I hope the maintainers of the other packages
will take care of them.)
Comments? Objections?
Kevin Kofler
11 years, 1 month
[RPM Fusion] Issue with fedora's openssl package for libbluray/libaacs
by Nicolas Chauvet
Hi,
As you may know, the libaacs package from RPM Fusion rely on openssl
functions that have been disabled in the fedora package for some
reason.
This lead the libaacs package to be partially unuseable for it's target usage.
I would like to list what would be possible workarounds for this
issue. We likely need to build a openssl-freeworld package:
- Build a similar package and drop a file in ld.conf.d to make it
system wide ? (the freetype-freeworld way)
This seems unpractical as we may produce unknown behavior and
un-certified code path with others applications.
- Build a shared object with another SONAME so packages liked with the
freeworld version will not conflict with package linked with the
fedora version.
(It will eventually be possible to relink the so to the the fedora
SONAME manually in a second step).
- Build the freeworld version statically.
The question to sync the patch between fedora and RPM Fusion VCS is a
big question until we move to git, so I hope that progress will be
made in this area soon.
If not we may experiment an openssl-freeworld to be possibily behind
the fedora version.
Any thoughts on that ?
Nicolas (kwizart).
11 years, 1 month
[Bug 2890] New: Review request: wl-6xx-kmod - Kernel module series 6.xx for Broadcom wireless devices
by RPM Fusion Bugzilla
https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2890
Bug #: 2890
Summary: Review request: wl-6xx-kmod - Kernel module series
6.xx for Broadcom wireless devices
Classification: Unclassified
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
SPEC file:
http://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/25699833/rpmfusion/Rawhide/wl-6xx-kmod...
SRPMS file:
http://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/25699833/rpmfusion/Rawhide/wl-6xx-kmod...
Sources URL:
https://launchpad.net/~albertomilone/+archive/broadcom/+packages
Description:
These packages contain Broadcom's IEEE 802.11a/b/g/n hybrid Linux device
driver version 6.xx for use with Broadcom's BCM4311-, BCM4312-, BCM4313-,
BCM4321-, BCM4322-, BCM43224-, and BCM43225-, BCM43227-, BCM43228-,
BCM43142- and BCM4331-based hardware.
rpmlint wl-6xx-kmod.spec
0 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.
rpmlint wl-6xx-kmod-6.30.223.30-1.fc20.src.rpm
wl-6xx-kmod.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US readme -> reamed,
remade, read me
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings.
This package depends on broadcom-wl-6xx package (review request filled at the
same time with same comment).
This review request obsolete review request #2550.
As the maintainer of the actual wl-kmod package for rpmfusion, I had to face
some unresolved bug report against the current wl-kmod 5.100.82.112 version
(rfbz#2721). The only solution was to provide this new device driver.
This driver comes from Ubuntu developer's repository, and is not a Broadcom
official wireless device driver, even if it was provided by Broadcom to the
Ubuntu team (in a goal of testing I guess). This driver is actually used in
recent official Ubuntu distributions.
Why proposing a wl-6xx-kmod instead of just "bumping" the actual rpmfusion
wl-kmod?
Some Ubuntu users with not so old wireless devices had bad experience with the
new driver (ie 6.30.223.30 and previous one 6.20) and had to revert to the
actual official Broadcom driver (ie 5.100.82.112). So, the two versions have to
be available in order to keep user's experience as smoother as possible as
described below.
Some new wireless devices don't work with the old driver (5.xx series), but
with the new one (6.xx series).
Some not so old wireless devices works with the old and the new driver (5.xx
and 6.xx series - my bcm4313 do for example).
Some not so old wireless devices works only with old driver (5.xx series).
Last reason to keep two versions of this driver is that it isn't an official
Broadcom one. Its status should be considered as "early-alpha" even if this one
is functional since April 2013 on some Fedora laptops (see rfbz#2721 or
rfbz#2550 for user's feedback).
Why offer this driver while the official kernel driver should also work on
certain wireless devices?
Users want their device to work to highest possible bit rate, want a working
LED on their laptop, etc.
Thanks in advance for your comments.
Cordially,
--
NVieville
--
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.
11 years, 1 month