[Bug 3138] New: New package: qarte
by RPM Fusion Bugzilla
https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=3138
Bug #: 3138
Summary: New package: qarte
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: nalimilan(a)club.fr
CC: rpmfusion-package-review(a)rpmfusion.org
Created attachment 1259
--> https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/attachment.cgi?id=1259
qarte.spec
This is a package to browse and download videos from the French and German arte
TV channel. It's been requested in the whishlist. Cannot be included in Fedora
because it requires rtmpdump.
This .spec file is based on the Mageia package.
--
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, 6 months
[Bug 3151] New: Review request: Notion - A tabbed, tiling window manager forked from Ion3
by RPM Fusion Bugzilla
https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=3151
Bug #: 3151
Summary: Review request: Notion - A tabbed, tiling window
manager forked from Ion3
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: jeff.backus(a)gmail.com
CC: rpmfusion-package-review(a)rpmfusion.org
Blocks: 2, 30
Spec URL: http://jsbackus.fedorapeople.org/notion/notion.spec
SRPM URL:
http://jsbackus.fedorapeople.org/notion/notion-3.2014010900-3.fc18.src.rpm
Description:
Notion is a tabbed, tiling window manager for the X windows system.
Features include:
* Workspaces: each work space has its own tiling.
* Multiheaded
* RandR support
* Extensible via Lua scripts.
This package is not eligible for inclusion in Fedora due to the license, which
is a modified version of the LGPLv2.1 with restrictions on naming. Official
response from Fedora-legal-list:
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/legal/2014-January/002364.html
This is my first RPM Fusion package and I am seeking a sponsor.
I did a self-review, which is below. The only rpmlint errors are with regard to
the license field.
Package Review
==============
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
===== MUST items =====
C/C++:
[x]: Package does not contain kernel modules.
[x]: Package contains no static executables.
[x]: Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present.
Note: Unversioned so-files in private %_libdir subdirectory (see
attachment). Verify they are not in ld path.
LD path not modified.
[x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la)
[x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs.
Generic:
[-]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
Guidelines.
Package is licensed under a modified version of the LGPLv2.1 that is too
restrictive for Fedora, as per review by Red Hat Legal.
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found:
"LGPL (v2.1 or later) (with incorrect FSF address)", "Unknown or
generated", "MIT/X11 (BSD like)", "*No copyright* LGPL (with incorrect
FSF address)", "LGPL (with incorrect FSF address)", "LGPL (v2.1 or
later)", "*No copyright* LGPL (v2.1 or later)". 315 files have unknown
license.
LICENSE file is included with each package. The contrib package has files
released under various different licenses and each license is listed in license
field.
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
Primary file imported into all Makefiles is modified via sed to incorporate
$RPM_OPT_FLAGS into CFLAGS.
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[x]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: The spec file handles locales properly.
[x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory names).
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
Provides are present.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[x]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
(~1MB) or number of files.
Note: Documentation size is 143360 bytes in 6 files.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one
supported primary architecture.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: 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 is included in %doc.
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that
are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
[x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
beginning of %install.
[x]: %config files are marked noreplace or the reason is justified.
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[x]: Package installs a %{name}.desktop using desktop-file-install or desktop-
file-validate if there is such a file.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install' ' DESTDIR=... doesn't
work.
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[x]: No %config files under /usr.
[x]: Package do not use a name that already exist
[x]: Package is not relocatable.
[x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as provided
in the spec URL.
[x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec.
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local
===== SHOULD items =====
Generic:
[x]: Uses parallel make %{?_smp_mflags} macro.
%{?_smp_mflags} is used when building the primary package. The contrib
subpackage does not build any binaries. Use of %{?_smp_mflags} causes the doc
subpackage to fail build. Considered a non-issue because doc package only build
PDF documents from LaTeX source.
[x]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate file
from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it.
Upstream's LICENSE file included.
[x]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments).
[x]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable.
Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in notion-
contrib , notion-doc
notion-contrib and notion-doc are noarch, and therefore only require
%{name} = %{version}-%{release}.
[x]: Package functions as described.
[x]: Latest version is packaged.
[x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[x]: Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise justified.
[-]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains
translations for supported Non-English languages, if available.
[x]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported
architectures.
Fedora 19 build on x86 and x86_64. Fedora 20 build on x86, x86_64, and ARM.
[-]: %check is present and all tests pass.
[!]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files.
[x]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file
[x]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag
[x]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.
[x]: Buildroot is not present
[x]: Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or
$RPM_BUILD_ROOT)
[x]: Dist tag is present (not strictly required in GL).
[x]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin.
[x]: SourceX is a working URL.
[x]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified.
===== EXTRA items =====
Generic:
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages.
Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package is
arched.
[x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM.
Rpmlint
-------
Checking: notion-3.2014010900-3.fc20.x86_64.rpm
notion-contrib-3.2014010900-3.fc20.noarch.rpm
notion-doc-3.2014010900-3.fc20.noarch.rpm
notion-3.2014010900-3.fc20.src.rpm
notion.x86_64: W: invalid-license Redistributable, modified LGPLv2.1
notion.src: W: invalid-license Redistributable, modified LGPLv2.1
4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings.
Rpmlint (installed packages)
----------------------------
# rpmlint notion-doc notion notion-contrib
notion.x86_64: W: invalid-license Redistributable, modified LGPLv2.1
3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings.
# echo 'rpmlint-done:'
Requires
--------
notion-doc (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
notion
notion (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
/bin/sh
config(notion)
libICE.so.6()(64bit)
libSM.so.6()(64bit)
libX11.so.6()(64bit)
libXext.so.6()(64bit)
libXinerama.so.1()(64bit)
libXrandr.so.2()(64bit)
libc.so.6()(64bit)
libdl.so.2()(64bit)
liblua-5.2.so()(64bit)
libm.so.6()(64bit)
librt.so.1()(64bit)
rtld(GNU_HASH)
xorg-x11-fonts-ISO8859-1-75dpi
xorg-x11-utils
xterm
notion-contrib (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
notion
terminus-fonts
Provides
--------
notion-doc:
notion-doc
notion:
config(notion)
notion
notion(x86-64)
notion-contrib:
notion-contrib
Unversioned so-files
--------------------
notion: /usr/lib64/notion/mod/de.so
notion: /usr/lib64/notion/mod/mod_dock.so
notion: /usr/lib64/notion/mod/mod_menu.so
notion: /usr/lib64/notion/mod/mod_notionflux.so
notion: /usr/lib64/notion/mod/mod_query.so
notion: /usr/lib64/notion/mod/mod_sm.so
notion: /usr/lib64/notion/mod/mod_sp.so
notion: /usr/lib64/notion/mod/mod_statusbar.so
notion: /usr/lib64/notion/mod/mod_tiling.so
notion: /usr/lib64/notion/mod/mod_xinerama.so
notion: /usr/lib64/notion/mod/mod_xkbevents.so
notion: /usr/lib64/notion/mod/mod_xrandr.so
Source checksums
----------------
https://fedorahosted.org/released/notion/notion.desktop :
CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package :
17a6565ff6b1d84bd589030eac91bd9d9be40ea50c3334fa48fb1f926971d88e
CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package :
17a6565ff6b1d84bd589030eac91bd9d9be40ea50c3334fa48fb1f926971d88e
http://downloads.sourceforge.net/project/notion/notion-3-2014010900-src.t...
:
CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package :
e697d556bc1ba764cb5b809312c07893fa6d4b5d3f678bde770d3bc0ffd972bc
CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package :
e697d556bc1ba764cb5b809312c07893fa6d4b5d3f678bde770d3bc0ffd972bc
https://fedorahosted.org/released/notion/notion-doc-3-2014010900.tar.gz :
CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package :
d5dfaaf09e0ffb0e06a8a54a7d48dec251b4e6e2da6cc56d9d920074e6c3b83b
CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package :
d5dfaaf09e0ffb0e06a8a54a7d48dec251b4e6e2da6cc56d9d920074e6c3b83b
Generated by fedora-review 0.5.1 (bb9bf27) last change: 2013-12-13
Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -n notion
Buildroot used: fedora-20-x86_64
Active plugins: Generic, Shell-api, C/C++
Disabled plugins: Java, Python, fonts, SugarActivity, Ocaml, Perl, Haskell, R,
PHP, Ruby
Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL5, BATCH, DISTTAG
RPMFusion/FAS Username: jsbackus
--
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, 10 months
[Bug 3203] New: x264 - get permissions to rebuild every package that depends on
by RPM Fusion Bugzilla
https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=3203
Bug #: 3203
Summary: x264 - get permissions to rebuild every package that
depends on
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: sergio(a)serjux.com
CC: rpmfusion-package-review(a)rpmfusion.org
Hi,
as point out we need a mass rebuild evrey time x264 bump soname , and x264
bumps it more or less every 2 months.
So every to months I have to ask people to rebuild his packages , kwizart ask
me to do the list of packages to grant me acls todo the mass rebuild alone .
So here is the list:
ffmpeg
libquicktime
avidemux
mplayer
ffmpeg-compat
gstreamer1-plugins-ugly
gstreamer-plugins-ugly
mythtv
vlc
Package CVS request
======================
Package Name: ffmpeg
Short Description: Digital VCR and streaming server
Owners: rathann,kwizart,belegdol,sergiomb
Branches: f20
InitialCC:
----------------------
License tag: free
Package CVS request
======================
Package Name: libquicktime
Short Description: A library for reading and writing Quicktime files.
Owners: kwizart , sergiomb
Branches: f20
InitialCC:
----------------------
License tag: free
Package CVS request
======================
Package Name: avidemux
Short Description: Graphical video editing tool
Owners: hobbes1069, sergiomb
Branches: f20
InitialCC:
----------------------
License tag: free
Package CVS request
======================
Package Name: mplayer
Short Description: Movie player playing most video formats and DVDs
Owners: rathann,kwizart,belegdol,hobbes1069,sergiomb
Branches: f20
InitialCC:
----------------------
License tag: free
Package CVS request
======================
Package Name: ffmpeg-compat
Short Description: Libraries for ffmpeg-compat
Owners: kwizart,sergiomb
Branches: f20
InitialCC:
----------------------
License tag: free
Package CVS request
======================
Package Name: gstreamer1-plugins-ugly
Short Description: GStreamer 1.0 streaming media framework "ugly" plug-ins
Owners: jwrdegoede,sergiomb
Branches: f20
InitialCC:
----------------------
License tag: free
Package CVS request
======================
Package Name: gstreamer-plugins-ugly
Short Description: GStreamer streaming media framework "ugly" plug-ins
Owners: jwrdegoede,laxathom,sergiomb
Branches: f20
InitialCC:
----------------------
License tag: free
Package CVS request
======================
Package Name: mythtv
Short Description: A digital video recorder (DVR) application
Owners: hobbes1069, sergiomb
Branches: f20
InitialCC:
----------------------
License tag: free
Package CVS request
======================
Package Name: vlc
Short Description: Multi-platform MPEG, DVD, and DivX player
Owners: kwizart, sergiomb
Branches: f20
InitialCC:
----------------------
License tag: free
--
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 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
