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, 2 months
[Bug 2926] New: Review request: mpv - Movie player playing most video formats and DVDs
by RPM Fusion Bugzilla
https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2926
Bug #: 2926
Summary: Review request: mpv - Movie player playing most video
formats and DVDs
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: mhroncok(a)redhat.com
CC: rpmfusion-package-review(a)rpmfusion.org
SPEC: https://raw.github.com/hroncok/SPECS/master/mpv.spec
SRPM: http://churchyard.fedorapeople.org/SRPMS/mpv-0.1.2-1.fc19.src.rpm
Description:
Mpv is a movie player that plays most MPEG, VOB, AVI, OGG/OGM,
VIVO, ASF/WMA/WMV, QT/MOV/MP4, FLI, RM, NuppelVideo, yuv4mpeg, FILM,
RoQ, and PVA files. You can also use it to watch VCDs, SVCDs, DVDs,
3ivx, RealMedia, and DivX movies.
It supports a wide range of output drivers including X11, XVideo, DGA,
OpenGL, SVGAlib, fbdev, AAlib, DirectFB etc. There are also nice
antialiased shaded subtitles and OSD.
It is a fork of mplayer and mplayer2.
Why this package is not eligible to be included in Fedora:
It depends on rpmfusion stuff and possible other reasons similar to mplayer's
ones.
The output rpmlint gives on both the source and binary packages:
$ rpmlint ./*rpm
mpv-debuginfo.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address
/usr/src/debug/mpv-0.1.2/stream/dvb_tune.c
mpv.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US fbdev -> bedevil
mpv.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US antialiased -> anti aliased,
anti-aliased, initialized
mpv.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US mplayer -> player, m player,
mp layer
mpv.src:82: W: configure-without-libdir-spec
mpv.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US fbdev -> bedevil
mpv.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US antialiased -> anti
aliased, anti-aliased, initialized
mpv.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US mplayer -> player, m
player, mp layer
3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 7 warnings.
spelling-errors are false positives
configure-without-libdir-spec - mpv doesn't support libdir configure option
incorrect-fsf-address - I won't patch that
This is my first RPM Fusion package.
I'm a Fedora sponsored packager but not an RPM Fusion sponsored 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.
11 years, 2 months
[Bug 2889] New: Review request: broadcom-wl-6xx - Common files for Broadcom 802.11 STA driver 6.xx series
by RPM Fusion Bugzilla
https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2889
Bug #: 2889
Summary: Review request: broadcom-wl-6xx - Common files for
Broadcom 802.11 STA driver 6.xx series
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/broadcom-wl...
SRPMS file:
http://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/25699833/rpmfusion/Rawhide/broadcom-wl...
Sources URL:
https://launchpad.net/~albertomilone/+archive/broadcom/+packages
Description:
This package contains the license, readme and configuration files for
the Broadcom 802.11 Linux STA Driver version 6.xx for WiFi, a Linux
device driver for use with Broadcom's BCM4311-, BCM4312-, BCM4313-,
BCM4321-, BCM4322-, BCM43224-, and BCM43225-, BCM43227-, BCM43228-,
BCM43142- and BCM4331-based hardware.
rpmlint broadcom-wl-6xx.spec
broadcom-wl-6xx.spec:49: E: hardcoded-library-path in
%{_prefix}/lib/modprobe.d/
broadcom-wl-6xx.spec:50: E: hardcoded-library-path in
%{_prefix}/lib/modprobe.d/
broadcom-wl-6xx.spec:62: E: hardcoded-library-path in
%{_prefix}/lib/modprobe.d/broadcom-wl-6xx-blacklist.conf
0 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 3 errors, 0 warnings.
rpmlint broadcom-wl-6xx-6.30.223.30-1.fc20.src.rpm
broadcom-wl-6xx.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US readme -> reamed,
remade, read me
broadcom-wl-6xx.src:49: E: hardcoded-library-path in %{_prefix}/lib/modprobe.d/
broadcom-wl-6xx.src:50: E: hardcoded-library-path in %{_prefix}/lib/modprobe.d/
broadcom-wl-6xx.src:62: E: hardcoded-library-path in
%{_prefix}/lib/modprobe.d/broadcom-wl-6xx-blacklist.conf
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 3 errors, 1 warnings.
This package depends on wl-6xx-kmod package (review request filled at the same
time with same comment).
This review request obsolete review request #2549.
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, 2 months
[Bug 2550] New: Review request: wl-bcm43142-kmod - X86_64 Kernel module for Broadcom wireless devices BCM43142
by RPM Fusion Bugzilla
https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2550
Bug #: 2550
Summary: Review request: wl-bcm43142-kmod - X86_64 Kernel
module for Broadcom wireless devices BCM43142
Classification: Unclassified
Product: Package Reviews
Version: Current
Platform: x86_64
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.dropbox.com/u/25699833/rpmfusion/F-18/wl-bcm43142-kmod/wl-bcm43...
SRPMS file:
http://dl.dropbox.com/u/25699833/rpmfusion/F-18/wl-bcm43142-kmod/wl-bcm43...
Sources URL:
http://jas.gemnetworks.com/wireless-bcm43142/
Description:
These packages contain x86_64 Broadcom's IEEE 802.11a/b/g/n hybrid Linux device
driver for use with Broadcom's BCM43142-based hardware also known as Broadcom
bcm4365 or Dell 1704 wireless device.
rpmlint wl-bcm43142-kmod.spec
0 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.
rpmlint wl-bcm43142-kmod-6.20.55.19-1.fc18.src.rpm
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.
Package not eligible to be included in Fedora as it contains some
non-modifiable binary.
As the maintainer of the actual wl-kmod package for rpmfusion, a user asked me
if I could provide the last broadcom wireless drivers for BCM43142-based
hardware, because this chipset is not driven by the actual package. He pointed
me to the actual maintainer site of this package for Debian, and these packages
(broadcom-wl-bcm43142 review request will follow) are largely inspired from
this site (http://jas.gemnetworks.com/wireless-bcm43142/).
The original package was shipped with Ubuntu's Dell laptop, but as far as I
know (digging the Web for 2 days) neither Broadcom or Dell provided on their
websites any sources for this driver. The only source cited by the Debian
packager is actually this site:
http://wielki.tk/vostro/
According to message #60 in this thread
http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=688823#60, Broadcom will not
update the official Broadcom STA driver (aka 5.100.82.112) as the new one was a
Dell/Ubuntu specific only.
While preparing these packages, I had to make some choices and I wonder if
someone could review and comment them if needed:
1.
These new package are x86_64 architecture only. Broadcom/Dell didn't provided
any binary library for i386 (32 bits) platform. I had to make these packages
x86_64 platform only by adding a "ExclusiveArch: x86_64" directive in the SPEC
file, and adding checking in the %prep section of this file too. Is this
correct?
2.
As this new driver doesn't work with some older Broadcom chipset (mine is
bcm4313 and doesn't work with it for example) that still work correctly with
5.100.82.112 driver, I didn't choice to use conflict directive in the SPEC
file. If one has a new chipset in his laptop and plug-in an old one via USB
port the problem will be unsolvable. I preferred to rename the new build module
with a different name to let users deal with there configuration more smoothly
(I hope that modifying some udev rules might be necessary to get them working).
So the new build module was rename from wl.ko to wl_bcm43142.ko at build time.
Is this correct, or am I wrong?
3.
As stated by all the users owning such laptop and wanting to upgrade their
original Ubuntu 11.10 to the last 12.04 or 12.10, this chipset is hybrid but
actually no bluetooth is working. Some efforts are made by Ubuntu developers to
get it working, but for the moment this part of the chipset is not supported
(see
https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/linux/+bug/863051/+index?commen...).
What is the best thing to do to inform users of such a limitation in this
package?
4.
After all, is it worth packaging this driver?
I can provide rawhide SPEC and SRPMS files if needed.
I plan to make it available since F-17 if accepted.
Same request made for the broadcom-wl-bcm43142 package.
As I do not own myself such a device, I would not be able to test new packages
as they would be build. Are there any volunteers to achieve this task?
Last question: as I'm already a rpmfusion packager, but not so experienced, do
I need a sponsor?
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, 2 months
[Bug 2549] New: Review request: broadcom-wl-bcm43142 - Common files for Broadcom 802.11 STA driver for BCM43142 devices
by RPM Fusion Bugzilla
https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2549
Bug #: 2549
Summary: Review request: broadcom-wl-bcm43142 - Common files
for Broadcom 802.11 STA driver for BCM43142 devices
Classification: Unclassified
Product: Package Reviews
Version: Current
Platform: x86_64
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.dropbox.com/u/25699833/rpmfusion/F-18/broadcom-wl-bcm43142/broa...
SRPMS file:
http://dl.dropbox.com/u/25699833/rpmfusion/F-18/broadcom-wl-bcm43142/broa...
Sources URL:
http://jas.gemnetworks.com/wireless-bcm43142/
Description:
This package contains the license, copyright and configuration files for the
Broadcom 802.11 Linux STA Driver for WiFi, a Linux device driver for use with
Broadcom's BCM43142-based hardware also known as Broadcom bcm4365 or Dell 1704
wireless device.
rpmlint broadcom-wl-bcm43142.spec
0 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.
rpmlint broadcom-wl-bcm43142-6.20.55.19-1.fc18.src.rpm
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.
Package not eligible to be included in Fedora as it contains some
non-modifiable binary.
As the maintainer of the actual broadcom-wl package for rpmfusion, a user asked
me if I could provide the last broadcom wireless drivers for BCM43142-based
hardware, because this chipset is not driven by the actual package. He pointed
me to the actual maintainer site of this package for Debian, and these packages
(wl-bcm43142-kmod review request will follow) are largely inspired from this
site (http://jas.gemnetworks.com/wireless-bcm43142/).
The original package was shipped with Ubuntu's Dell laptop, but as far as I
know (digging the Web for 2 days) neither Broadcom or Dell provided on their
websites any sources for this driver. The only source cited by the Debian
packager is actually this site:
http://wielki.tk/vostro/
According to message #60 in this thread
http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=688823#60, Broadcom will not
update the official Broadcom STA driver (aka 5.100.82.112) as the new one was a
Dell/Ubuntu specific only.
While preparing these packages, I had to make some choices and I wonder if
someone could review and comment them if needed:
1.
These new package are x86_64 architecture only. Broadcom/Dell didn't provided
any binary library for i386 (32 bits) platform. I had to make these packages
x86_64 platform only by adding a "ExclusiveArch: x86_64" directive in the SPEC
file, and adding checking in the %prep section of this file too. Is this
correct?
2.
As this new driver doesn't work with some older Broadcom chipset (mine is
bcm4313 and doesn't work with it for example) that still work correctly with
5.100.82.112 driver, I didn't choice to use conflict directive in the SPEC
file. If one has a new chipset in his laptop and plug-in an old one via USB
port the problem will be unsolvable. I preferred to rename the new build module
with a different name to let users deal with there configuration more smoothly
(I hope that modifying some udev rules might be necessary to get them working).
So the new build module was rename from wl.ko to wl_bcm43142.ko at build time.
Is this correct, or am I wrong?
3.
As stated by all the users owning such laptop and wanting to upgrade their
original Ubuntu 11.10 to the last 12.04 or 12.10, this chipset is hybrid but
actually no bluetooth is working. Some efforts are made by Ubuntu developers to
get it working, but for the moment this part of the chipset is not supported
(see
https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/linux/+bug/863051/+index?commen...).
What is the best thing to do to inform users of such a limitation in this
package?
4.
After all, is it worth packaging this driver?
I can provide rawhide SPEC and SRPMS files if needed.
I plan to make it available for F-17 if accepted.
Same request made for the wl-bcm43142-kmod package.
As I do not own myself such a device, I would not be able to test new packages
as they would be build. Are there any volunteers to achieve this task?
Last question: as I'm already a rpmfusion packager, but not so experienced, do
I need a sponsor?
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, 2 months
