[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.
3 years, 10 months
[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.
3 years, 10 months
[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.
3 years, 10 months
[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, 6 months
[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, 1 month
[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, 7 months
[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, 7 months