[Bug 2319] New: vdr-markad - Advanced commercial detection for VDR
by RPM Fusion Bugzilla
https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2319
Bug #: 2319
Summary: vdr-markad - Advanced commercial detection for VDR
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: mgansser(a)alice.de
CC: rpmfusion-package-review(a)rpmfusion.org
MarkAd marks advertisements in VDR recordings.
Spec URL:
https://www.disk.dsl.o2online.de/FclyPlh/RPMS/VDR/vdr-markad/vdr-markad.s...
SRPM URL:
https://www.disk.dsl.o2online.de/FclyPlh/RPMS/VDR/vdr-markad/vdr-markad-0...
rpmlint output:
rpmlint vdr-markad-0.1.3-1.20120310git.fc17.x86_64.rpm
vdr-markad.x86_64: I: enchant-dictionary-not-found en_US
vdr-markad.x86_64: W: unstripped-binary-or-object
/usr/lib64/vdr/libvdr-markad.so.1.7.27
vdr-markad.x86_64: W: unstripped-binary-or-object /usr/bin/markad
vdr-markad.x86_64: W: non-standard-uid /etc/vdr/plugins/markad vdr
vdr-markad.x86_64: W: non-standard-uid
/usr/share/locale/sk_SK/LC_MESSAGES/vdr-markad.mo vdr
vdr-markad.x86_64: W: non-standard-uid
/usr/share/locale/it_IT/LC_MESSAGES/vdr-markad.mo vdr
vdr-markad.x86_64: W: non-standard-uid
/usr/share/locale/de_DE/LC_MESSAGES/vdr-markad.mo vdr
vdr-markad.x86_64: W: non-standard-uid
/usr/share/locale/es_ES/LC_MESSAGES/vdr-markad.mo vdr
vdr-markad.x86_64: W: non-standard-uid
/usr/share/locale/fi_FI/LC_MESSAGES/vdr-markad.mo vdr
vdr-markad.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary markad
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 9 warnings.
--
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.
9 years, 11 months
[Bug 2762] New: Review request: warsow - Fast paced 3D first person shooter
by RPM Fusion Bugzilla
https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2762
Bug #: 2762
Summary: Review request: warsow - Fast paced 3D first person
shooter
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: kalevlember(a)gmail.com
CC: rpmfusion-package-review(a)rpmfusion.org
Blocks: 2
Spec URL: http://kalev.fedorapeople.org/warsow.spec
SRPM URL: http://kalev.fedorapeople.org/warsow-1.02-1.fc18.src.rpm
Description:
Warsow is a fast paced first person shooter consisting of cel-shaded
cartoon-like graphics with dark, flashy and dirty textures. Warsow is based on
the E-novel "Chasseur de bots" ("Bots hunter" in English) by Fabrice Demurger.
Warsow's codebase is built upon Qfusion, an advanced modification of the Quake
II engine.
-----
The package is GPL-licensed, but needs non-free data, which I'm submitting
separately as warsow-data. The data files aren't suitable for inclusion in
Fedora proper.
This is my first rpmfusion package and I'd need rpmfusion sponsorship.
--
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
[Bug 2763] New: Review request: warsow-data - Game data for Warsow
by RPM Fusion Bugzilla
https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2763
Bug #: 2763
Summary: Review request: warsow-data - Game data for Warsow
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: kalevlember(a)gmail.com
CC: rpmfusion-package-review(a)rpmfusion.org
Blocks: 2
Spec URL: http://kalev.fedorapeople.org/warsow-data.spec
Description:
Warsow is a fast paced first person shooter consisting of cel-shaded
cartoon-like graphics with dark, flashy and dirty textures. Warsow is based on
the E-novel "Chasseur de bots" ("Bots hunter" in English) by Fabrice Demurger.
Warsow's codebase is built upon Qfusion, an advanced modification of the Quake
II engine.
This package installs the game data files (textures, maps, sounds, etc.).
-----
The game-engine is GPL-licensed, but needs non-free data which isn't suitable
for inclusion in Fedora proper. I've submitted the 'warsow' package separately
in bug 2762.
Note that I'm not uploading the srpm. Please use 'spectool -g warsow-data.spec'
to retrieve the 500 MB data file tarball; I don't want to store it on
fedorapeople.org.
--
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
[Bug 3155] New: Review request: pithos - Native Pandora Radio Client for Linux
by RPM Fusion Bugzilla
https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=3155
Bug #: 3155
Summary: Review request: pithos - Native Pandora Radio Client
for Linux
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: mkreder(a)gmail.com
CC: rpmfusion-package-review(a)rpmfusion.org
SPEC: http://mkreder.com/files/pithos.spec
SRPM: http://mkreder.com/files/pithos-0.3.17-1.fc21.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.
This package shouldn't be included in Fedora because it uses special gstreamer
codecs.
$ rpmlint pithos-0.3.17-1.fc21.src.rpm
pithos.src:32: E: hardcoded-library-path in
%{buildroot}/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/pithos/pithos.py
rpmli 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 0 warnings.
I couldn't find a way to do the same because for 64 bits %{_libdir} will show a
different dir.
$ rpmlint pithos-0.3.17-1.fc21.noarch.rpm
pithos.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary pithos
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings.
The author of the package has not written a manual page yet.
This is my first package in RPMFusion. I am already a fedora packager, my
account is 'delete'
--
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
[Bug 3110] New: Deploy the package gstreamer-plugins-bad in EL6 Repository (rpmfusion)
by RPM Fusion Bugzilla
https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=3110
Bug #: 3110
Summary: Deploy the package gstreamer-plugins-bad in EL6
Repository (rpmfusion)
Classification: Unclassified
Product: Package Reviews
Version: Current
Platform: All
OS/Version: GNU/Linux
Status: NEW
Severity: enhancement
Priority: P5
Component: Review Request
AssignedTo: rpmfusion-package-review(a)rpmfusion.org
ReportedBy: mail(a)netasp.de
CC: rpmfusion-package-review(a)rpmfusion.org
Is it possible to provide the package gstreamer-plugins-bad in the repository
EL6?
With this additional package EL6 users are able to use Windows Media streams
(mms) and other multimedia in EL6.
Thanks a lot!
--
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, 1 month
Packaging 3-rd party repositories in rpmfusion
by Alec Leamas
Formally, this is about review request 3152 for dropbox-repo [1]. From
a more practical POV, it's about users being able to install software
like dropbox more or less "out of the box", an area where I think we
really need to improve (as can be seen in all those "Fedora XX post
installation guide" out there).
My basic understanding is that current Fedora guidelines needs a
interpretation in the rpmfusion context. Those brand new GL for 3-rd
party repos are in [2] (discussions in [3]). For now, I think they can
be abridged to:
- Non-free repos can not be part of Fedora yum configuration.
- In some cases free repos can be part of the configuration after
FESCO/Fedora legal approval.
Now, IMHO this doesn't really make much sense for rpmfusion for three reasons:
- rpmfusion does not ban non-free software, it's one of the very
reasons it exists.
- FESCO/Fedora legal cannot approve anything in rpmfusion.
- We already have a list of endorsed 3-rd party repos [4].
To handle this, my simple proposal is that we handles packaged yum
repositories like this:
- It's ok to package yum repositories listed in [4].
- If anyone wants to change the list in [4] this should be announced
here on rpmfusion-devel, and not done until we agree on it (similar to
how we handle bundling exceptions).
Thoughts. out there?
--alec
[1] https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=3152
[2] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Third_Party_Repository_Policy
[3] https://fedorahosted.org/fesco/ticket/1201#comment:32
[4] http://rpmfusion.org/FedoraThirdPartyRepos
10 years, 1 month
[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, 1 month
Re: EPEL libbluray soname bump in
by Xavier Bachelot
Hi,
On 01/03/2014 10:05 PM, Orion Poplawski wrote:
> I'd like to call attention to:
>
> Setting up Upgrade Process
> Resolving Dependencies
> --> Running transaction check
> ---> Package libbluray.x86_64 0:0.2-0.6.20110710git51d7d60a96d06.el6 will be
> updated
> --> Processing Dependency: libbluray.so.0()(64bit) for package:
> mencoder-1.0-0.140.20120205svn.el6.1.x86_64
> ---> Package libbluray.x86_64 0:0.5.0-2.el6 will be an update
> --> Finished Dependency Resolution
> Error: Package: mencoder-1.0-0.140.20120205svn.el6.1.x86_64
> (@rpmfusion-free-el6-updates-testing-x86_64/6.1)
> Requires: libbluray.so.0()(64bit)
> Removing: libbluray-0.2-0.6.20110710git51d7d60a96d06.el6.x86_64
> (@epel-6-x86_64/6.1)
> libbluray.so.0()(64bit)
> Updated By: libbluray-0.5.0-2.el6.x86_64 (epel-testing)
> Not found
>
> https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2013-12460/libbluray-...
>
>
The update has been unpushed.
The karma messages is not the right place to discuss, so let's do it here.
The only dependency for this library is mplayer from RPM Fusion. mplayer
maintainer is ok to rebuild, but RPM Fusion admin is not ok to grant a
buildroot override. I know the update is a soname bump, it was my
mistake to build an early libbluray version in EPEL, and I won't do it
again, but I don't see how plainly refusing the buildroot override
without explanation from any side is helping, especially when the
maintainer of the one and only depending package is ok to rebuild. I'm
just trying to have a maintainable and useful library in EPEL, and I'd
rather drop it than keep it this way, because it is missing a lot of
features and will break sooner or later. People will just have to wait
for RHEL 7 and clones to get it again.
In short, I don't want to maintain this old libbluray in EPEL 6 and
there's nothing I can do to avoid the temporary breakage unless RPM
Fusion admin changes his mind, so either one find a way to have it
updated then mplayer rebuilt against it, either I'll probably drop it
and other dependant packages (which will require an mplayer rebuild anyway).
Adding rpmfusion-devel to recipients.
And btw, how to request an override in RPM Fusion is not documented, so
I did not know it was even possible. If anyone feels like explaining the
process, I might add it to the wiki, to avoid other people wasting time
searching about this like I did. And while I think about it, how to
retire a package is not documented either, but I should be able to
recollect the process from memory and logs.
Regards,
Xavier
10 years, 2 months
[Bug 3043] New: Review request: lfp-flash-plugin - Adobe Flash Player package bootstrap
by RPM Fusion Bugzilla
https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=3043
Bug #: 3043
Summary: Review request: lfp-flash-plugin - Adobe Flash Player
package bootstrap
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: negativo17(a)gmail.com
CC: rpmfusion-package-review(a)rpmfusion.org
Blocks: 2
spec:
http://slaanesh.fedorapeople.org/lpf-flash-plugin.spec
srpm:
http://slaanesh.fedorapeople.org/lpf-flash-plugin-11.2.202.327-1.fc19.src...
Bootstrap package allowing the lpf system to build the
non-redistributable flash-plugin package.
rpmlint:
lpf-flash-plugin.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US
redistributable -> redistribute, redistribution, attributable
lpf-flash-plugin.noarch: W: non-standard-uid
/var/lib/lpf/packages/flash-plugin/state pkg-build
lpf-flash-plugin.noarch: W: non-standard-gid
/var/lib/lpf/packages/flash-plugin/state pkg-build
lpf-flash-plugin.noarch: W: non-standard-uid /var/lib/lpf/packages/flash-plugin
pkg-build
lpf-flash-plugin.noarch: W: non-standard-gid /var/lib/lpf/packages/flash-plugin
pkg-build
--> Package depends on lpf which creates this user and group
lpf-flash-plugin.noarch: E: non-standard-dir-perm
/var/lib/lpf/packages/flash-plugin 0775L
--> Needed so that users can access files owned by lpf
lpf-flash-plugin.noarch: W: desktopfile-without-binary
/usr/share/applications/lpf-flash-plugin.desktop setsid
--> Command setsid is in the base system (util-linux)
lpf-flash-plugin.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US redistributable
-> redistribute, redistribution, attributable
2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 7 warnings.
--
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, 2 months