April 2015 - rpmfusion-developers

[Bug 2997] New: Review Request: spinroot - Formal verification of multi-threaded software applications

by RPM Fusion Bugzilla

https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2997 Bug #: 2997 Summary: Review Request: spinroot - Formal verification of multi-threaded software applications 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: alexisis-pristontale(a)hotmail.com CC: rpmfusion-package-review(a)rpmfusion.org Blocks: 2 SPEC: http://lameire.iiens.net/spinroot/spinroot.spec SRPM: http://lameire.iiens.net/spinroot/spinroot-6.2.5-1.fc18.src.rpm MOCK BUILD LOG: http://lameire.iiens.net/spinroot/build.log ALL OTHER USEFULL STUFF: http://lameire.iiens.net/spinroot/ RPMLINT: spinroot.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) multi -> mulch, mufti spinroot.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US multi -> mulch, mufti spinroot.x86_64: W: invalid-license free use for educational purpose Not eligible on fedora repo : non free app, only redistribuable without money exchange. NB: a "spin" package is already avalable on fedora repo, I rename the package folowing the website domain Description: Spin targets the efficient verification of multi-threaded software, not the verification of hardware circuits. The tool supports a high level language to specify systems descriptions called PROMELA (short for: PROcess MEta LAnguage). Spin has been used to trace logical design errors in distributed systems design, such as operating systems, data communications protocols, switching systems, concurrent algorithms, railway signaling protocols, control software for spacecraft, nuclear power plants, etc. The tool checks the logical consistency of a specification and reports on deadlocks, race conditions, different types of incompleteness, and unwarranted assumptions about the relative speeds of processes. I have no approuved package on rpm-fusion, but I'm already approuved on fedora. -- 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.

4 years, 1 month

1
7
0 / 0

[Bug 3001] New: Review request: nouveau-firmware - Firwmare files used by the nouveau Linux kernel driver

by RPM Fusion Bugzilla

https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=3001 Bug #: 3001 Summary: Review request: nouveau-firmware - Firwmare files used by the nouveau Linux kernel driver 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: chemobejk(a)gmail.com CC: rpmfusion-package-review(a)rpmfusion.org Spawned from discussion in bug #2633 ---------------------------------------------------------- SPEC: https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/attachment.cgi?id=1199 FYI: The SRPM will use the same Nvidia blob files as xorg-x11-drv-nvidia. ---------------------------------------------------------- %description This package includes firmware files required for the nouveau kernel driver to activate Video acceleration on certain Nvidia devices. ---------------------------------------------------------- $ rpmlint SRPMS/nouveau-firmware-325.15-1.fc19.src.rpm RPMS/noarch/nouveau-firmware-325.15-1.fc19.noarch.rpm nouveau-firmware.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) Firwmare -> Firmware, Firearm - Oops will fix that of course :-) nouveau-firmware.src: W: file-size-mismatch extract_firmware.py = 11218, https://raw.github.com/imirkin/re-vp2/master/extract_firmware.py = 10692 - I made modifications to this script to enable use in "packaging mode" nouveau-firmware.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) Firwmare -> Firmware, Firearm - see above nouveau-firmware.noarch: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib - No idea. The binary package has only firmware files for the kernel, i.e. /usr/lib/firmware/nouveau/* nouveau-firmware.noarch: W: no-documentation - Good point. I guess I could add a README with a URL pointing to the nouveau Video Acceleration page 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 5 warnings. ---------------------------------------------------------- This is my first RPMFusion package. I'm a Fedora sponsored package though... -- 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.

4 years, 1 month

1
15
0 / 0

[Bug 3007] New: Review request: gtkradiant-data - Data files for the video games level editor

by RPM Fusion Bugzilla

https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=3007 Bug #: 3007 Summary: Review request: gtkradiant-data - Data files for the video games level editor 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: bebo.sudo(a)gmail.com CC: rpmfusion-package-review(a)rpmfusion.org Blocks: 2909 Spec URL: http://sourceforge.net/projects/bebosudo-rpms/files/gtkradiant-data/gtkra... SRPM URL: http://sourceforge.net/projects/bebosudo-rpms/files/gtkradiant-data/F19/S... Description: Data files for the gtkradiant engine. ---- This package is related with bug 2909, because unless this, the gtkradiant package is useless. I split the data in another package to manage it better. The license of these gamepacks are not certain, and this is the main reason I have to file this package in rpmfusion. I only found the quake3 sdk license, which I put in the package, but I'm not able to find the others. If you have any suggestion please share with me. Thanks, Alberto -- 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.

4 years, 1 month

1
6
0 / 0

[Bug 3036] New: Review request: RBDoom3BFG - Robert Beckebans' Doom 3 BFG engine

by RPM Fusion Bugzilla

https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=3036 Bug #: 3036 Summary: Review request: RBDoom3BFG - Robert Beckebans' Doom 3 BFG 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: negativo17(a)gmail.com CC: rpmfusion-package-review(a)rpmfusion.org Blocks: 2 SPEC: http://slaanesh.fedorapeople.org/RBDoom3BFG.spec SRPM: http://slaanesh.fedorapeople.org/RBDoom3BFG-1.1400-11.gitaaed5dd0.fc19.sr... RBDoom3BFG 3 is a Doom 3 BFG GPL source modification. The goal of RBDoom3BFG 3 is to bring Doom 3 BFG with the help of SDL to all suitable platforms. Bugs present in the original DOOM 3 will be fixed (when identified) without altering the original game-play. Why it's not in Fedora? Packaging guidelines prohibit engines where the content is not available. The engine is fully Open Source. Note: Information on the package and on the game content is inside the README.txt file. $ rpmlint RBDoom3BFG*rpm RBDoom3BFG.src: W: strange-permission RBDoom3BFG-git-checkout.sh 0751L RBDoom3BFG.src: W: invalid-url Source0: RBDoom3BFG-1.1400-gitaaed5dd0.tar.bz2 RBDoom3BFG.x86_64: E: invalid-soname /usr/lib64/libidlib.so libidlib.so RBDoom3BFG.x86_64: W: file-not-utf8 /usr/share/doc/RBDoom3BFG-1.1400/COPYING.txt RBDoom3BFG.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary RBDoom3BFG 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 4 warnings. > RBDoom3BFG.src: W: strange-permission RBDoom3BFG-git-checkout.sh 0751L > RBDoom3BFG.src: W: invalid-url Source0: RBDoom3BFG-1.1400-gitaaed5dd0.tar.bz2 Script used to generate the Source0 main file. This is legitimate in Fedora packaging guidelines. > RBDoom3BFG.x86_64: E: invalid-soname /usr/lib64/libidlib.so libidlib.so This is the main engine code, it is dynamically loaded at runtime from the ld.so path; default compilation from upstream sources loads it through RPATH. The game it's looking for that specific name, much like a plugin. There's no need to run ldconfig in %post/%postun. The rest can be ignored. -- 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.

4 years, 1 month

1
14
0 / 0

[Bug 2929] New: Review Request: smtube - A Youtube browser that can play and download Youtube videos

by RPM Fusion Bugzilla

https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2929 Bug #: 2929 Summary: Review Request: smtube - A Youtube browser that can play and download Youtube videos 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: cickumqt(a)gmail.com CC: rpmfusion-package-review(a)rpmfusion.org Spec URL: http://cicku.me/smtube.spec SRPM URL: http://cicku.me/smtube-1.8-1.fc21.src.rpm Description: SMTube is a Youtube browser which allows to search, play and download Youtube videos. This project is based on some code from UMPlayer. Reason for not in Fedora: It needs smplayer. -- 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.

5 years, 1 month

1
7
0 / 0

[Bug 3576] New: Review request: obs-studio - Open Broadcaster Software Studio

by RPM Fusion Bugzilla

https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=3576 Bug #: 3576 Summary: Review request: obs-studio - Open Broadcaster Software Studio 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: fedorauser(a)fedoraproject.org CC: rpmfusion-package-review(a)rpmfusion.org Blocks: 2, 30 https://fedorauser.fedorapeople.org/obs-studio-0.9.0-1.fc21.src.rpm https://fedorauser.fedorapeople.org/obs-studio.spec Open Broadcaster Software is free and open source software for video recording and live streaming. OBS is not in Fedora because it depends on ffmpeg and other non free software. I need to be sponsored as this is my first package and I'm not sponsored in Fedora. OBS studio has some issues with placing files in correct location, there was a discussion about this (https://github.com/jp9000/obs-studio/pull/391). I think that all of these errors are related to this. rpmlint outputs: $ rpmlint SRPMS/obs-studio-0.9.0-1.fc21.src.rpm obs-studio.src:33: E: hardcoded-library-path in %{buildroot}/usr/lib/libobs*.so* obs-studio.src:54: E: hardcoded-library-path in %{_prefix}/lib/cmake/LibObs obs-studio.src:62: E: hardcoded-library-path in %{_prefix}/lib/obs-plugins 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 3 errors, 0 warnings. $ rpmlint RPMS/x86_64/obs-studio-0.9.0-1.fc21.x86_64.rpm obs-studio.x86_64: W: shared-lib-calls-exit /usr/lib64/libobs.so.0 exit(a)GLIBC_2.2.5 obs-studio.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/lib64/libobsglad.so obs-studio.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/lib64/libobs.so obs-studio.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/lib64/libobs-opengl.so obs-studio.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/share/doc/obs-studio/COPYING obs-studio.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary obs 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 5 warnings. $ rpmlint RPMS/x86_64/obs-studio-devel-0.9.0-1.fc21.x86_64.rpm obs-studio-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings. $ rpmlint RPMS/x86_64/obs-studio-debuginfo-0.9.0-1.fc21.x86_64.rpm 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 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.

5 years, 9 months

1
51
0 / 0

[Bug 3111] New: Review Request: ppsspp - playstation portable emulator

by RPM Fusion Bugzilla

https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=3111 Bug #: 3111 Summary: Review Request: ppsspp - playstation portable 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: fast.rizwaan(a)gmail.com CC: rpmfusion-package-review(a)rpmfusion.org Description: PPSSPP is a playstation portable emulator Why not in fedora: emulators are not allowed. SPEC:https://www.dropbox.com/s/likw80h5k1yqigp/ppsspp.spec SRPM:https://www.dropbox.com/s/mmaz75mm4hauacf/ppsspp-v0.9.6_366-1.gitga1... also I've made a bash script which makes latest rpm from git snapshot rpms:https://www.dropbox.com/s/5ziwo5e49emml6j/make-ppsspp-rpm-from-git.sh rpmlint output: bash-4.2$ rpmlint ppsspp.spec ppsspp-v0.9.6_366-1.gitga113abd.fc20.src.rpm ppsspp.spec:10: W: non-standard-group Applications/Games ppsspp.spec:14: W: macro-in-comment %{name} ppsspp.spec:14: W: macro-in-comment %{version} ppsspp.spec:15: W: macro-in-comment %{version} ppsspp.spec:17: W: macro-in-comment %{chkoutversion} ppsspp.spec:20: W: macro-in-comment %{version} ppsspp.spec:20: W: macro-in-comment %{version} ppsspp.spec:55: W: setup-not-quiet ppsspp.spec: W: invalid-url Source0: ppsspp-v0.9.6_366.tar.xz ppsspp.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) Playstation -> PlayStation, Play station, Play-station ppsspp.src: W: non-standard-group Applications/Games ppsspp.src: W: no-version-in-last-changelog ppsspp.src: W: invalid-url URL ppsspp.org ppsspp.src: W: strange-permission make-ppsspp-from-git.sh 0755L ppsspp.src: W: strange-permission ppsspp.spec 0640L ppsspp.src: W: strange-permission ppsspp.png 0755L ppsspp.src:14: W: macro-in-comment %{name} ppsspp.src:14: W: macro-in-comment %{version} ppsspp.src:15: W: macro-in-comment %{version} ppsspp.src:17: W: macro-in-comment %{chkoutversion} ppsspp.src:20: W: macro-in-comment %{version} ppsspp.src:20: W: macro-in-comment %{version} ppsspp.src:55: W: setup-not-quiet ppsspp.src: W: invalid-url Source0: ppsspp-v0.9.6_366.tar.xz 1 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 24 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.

6 years, 3 months

1
3
0 / 0

[Bug 3255] New: Review Request: ldoce5viewer - Viewer Application for the Longman Dictionary (LDOCE 5)

by RPM Fusion Bugzilla

https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=3255 Bug #: 3255 Summary: Review Request: ldoce5viewer - Viewer Application for the Longman Dictionary (LDOCE 5) 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: dwrobel(a)ertelnet.rybnik.pl CC: rpmfusion-package-review(a)rpmfusion.org Spec URL: http://dwrobel.fedorapeople.org/projects/rpmbuild/SPECS/ldoce5viewer.spec SRPM URL: http://dwrobel.fedorapeople.org/projects/rpmbuild/SRPMS/ldoce5viewer-2014... Description: The ldoce5viewer is an alternative dictionary viewer for the Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English 5th Edition (LDOCE 5). Fedora Account System Username: dwrobel According to the packaging guidelines [1] packages which are not useful without external bits are not acceptable for inclusion in Fedora. This is my first package for RPM Fusion. $ rpmlint ldoce5viewer-2014.02.24-1.fc20.src.rpm ldoce5viewer-2014.02.24-1.fc20.noarch.rpm ldoce5viewer.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary ldoce5viewer 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings. Manual page is optional. [1] http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Packages_which_are_not... -- 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.

6 years, 9 months

1
7
0 / 0

[Bug 2222] New: Review request: libactp - Adaptive Clearing Tool Path Library

by RPM Fusion Bugzilla

https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2222 Bug #: 2222 Summary: Review request: libactp - Adaptive Clearing Tool Path Library 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: SpikeFedora(a)gmail.com CC: rpmfusion-package-review(a)rpmfusion.org Blocks: 2 Spec URL: http://spike.fedorapeople.org/libactp/libactp.spec SRPM URL: http://spike.fedorapeople.org/libactp/libactp-0.0.2-0.1.20111219giteb97a6... Description: The libactp (Adaptive Clearing Tool Path Library) is an implementation of the GPL'ed algorithm demonstrated in FreeSteel as a set of C library functions Why this package is not eligible to be included in Fedora: "Some software is not functional or useful without the presence of external code dependencies in the runtime operating system environment. When those external code dependencies are non-free, legally unacceptable, or binary-only [...], then the dependent software is not acceptable for inclusion in Fedora"[1] Since atm only HeeksCNC uses this lib and HeeksCNC depends on OCE (HeeksCNC->HeeksCAD-devel->OCE-devel), which is considered non-free, I assume the term "not useful" applies here. [1] http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines rpmlint output: SPECS/libactp.spec: W: invalid-url Source0: libactp-svnHEAD.tar.bz2 libactp.src: W: invalid-url Source0: libactp-svnHEAD.tar.bz2 1 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings. Upstream doesn't provide a release package tarball. Careful: I usually don't do any python packaging. Here be dragons! -- 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.

6 years, 9 months

1
3
0 / 0

[Bug 2363] New: jitsi - Open Source Video Calls and Chat

by RPM Fusion Bugzilla

https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2363 Bug #: 2363 Summary: jitsi - Open Source Video Calls and Chat 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: fedora(a)marionline.it CC: rpmfusion-package-review(a)rpmfusion.org SPEC: http://marionline.fedorapeople.org/packages/SPECS/jitsi.spec SRPMS: http://marionline.fedorapeople.org/packages/SRPMS/jitsi-1.1-1.nightly.bui... Description: Jitsi (previously SIP Communicator) is an audio/video and chat communicator that supports protocols such as SIP, XMPP/Jabber, AIM/ICQ, Windows Live, Yahoo! and many other useful features. Why here: This package cannot be shipped into official fedora repository because upstream use ffmpeg library. Rpmlint: jitsi.src: W: invalid-url Source4: portaudio-hotplug-r1838.tar.gz jitsi.src: W: invalid-url Source3: jdic-r1736.tar.gz jitsi.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/lib64/portaudio-hotplug-r1838/libportaudio.a jitsi.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/include/portaudio-hotplug-r1838/portaudio.h jitsi.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/lib64/portaudio-hotplug-r1838/pkgconfig/portaudio-2.0.pc jitsi.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/include/portaudio-hotplug-r1838/pa_linux_alsa.h jitsi.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary jitsi 4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 7 warnings. I think jdic and portaudio branch hotplug for now is useful just for jitsi so I include them directly in this package. There are not official releases of this two packages, I checkout the code from svn repository. This is not my first RPM package. I just open another review request here for another SIP software, homer: https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2237 -- 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.

6 years, 9 months

1
3
0 / 0

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

rpmfusion-developers April 2015