January 2016 - rpmfusion-developers

[Bug 3853] New: Review request: mpv - 0.13.0

by RPM Fusion Bugzilla

https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=3853 Bug #: 3853 Summary: Review request: mpv - 0.13.0 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: surfernsk(a)gmail.com CC: rpmfusion-package-review(a)rpmfusion.org .spec https://github.com/surfer-nsk/mpv/blob/master/mpv.spec srpm http://surfernsk.ru/repo/fc22/SRPMS/mpv-0.13.0-1.fc22.src.rpm %description Mpv is a movie player based on MPlayer and mplayer2. It supports a wide variety of video file formats, audio and video codecs, and subtitle types. Special input URL types are available to read input from a variety of sources other than disk files. Depending on platform, a variety of different video and audio output methods are supported. It's my first pkg for RPM Fusion. -- 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.

8 years, 2 months

1
25
0 / 0

nailer, gmtk, gnome-mplayer and gecko-mediaplayer

by Julian Sikorski

Hi list, the main developer behind nailer, gmtk, gnome-mplayer and gecko-mediaplayer has switched to Mac in late 2013 [1]. Since then, only one release was made [2], after which the code has not seen much activity (2 commits). Github migration has not helped either [3]. All of the above makes me consider retiring the packages. Even though they are functional, I am not in position to fix any of the bugs reported. Please let me know what you think. Best regards, Julian [1] https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/gnome-mplayer/bG9fBqxk4k0 [2] https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/gnome-mplayer/UOi6yI6DiP8 [3] https://github.com/kdekorte

8 years, 2 months

3
2
0 / 0

Self-introduction: Neal Gompa

by Neal Gompa

Hello all, I've been a part of the Fedora community for many years, and a user of RPM Fusion and its predecessors for equally as long. As a long-time Fedora contributor, I never really had a reason to jump into the RPM Fusion fray until a friend of mine prodded me a bit to get something he liked into Fedora, which is why I've submitted a review request for nordlicht ( https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=3954 ). I hope to have a good time here and that I can become involved in RPM Fusion as I have in Fedora and other communities I'm a part of. Best regards, Neal -- 真実はいつも一つ！/ Always, there's only one truth!

8 years, 2 months

2
2
0 / 0

[Bug 3951] New: Request that MakeHuman be packaged.

by RPM Fusion Bugzilla

https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=3951 Bug #: 3951 Summary: Request that MakeHuman be packaged. 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: MeSat(a)TelusPlanet.net CC: rpmfusion-package-review(a)rpmfusion.org MakeHuman is a python program that is used for creating 3D human characters that can be imported into blender or used for game development. Saves much work if you are trying to create humanoid characters. http://www.makehuman.org Presently, there is a package on SUSE but package naming is different so there is a conflict between SUSE package and the one required for Fedora. SUSE requires python-numpy and python-opengl On fedora these are numpy and PyOpenGL. The install can be forced but it would be nice for it to be maintained on RPM fusion. This would also require the MakeHuman data package as well. http://www.makehuman.org/download_makehuman_102.php -- 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.

8 years, 2 months

1
1
0 / 0

Kodi 16 testing

by Michael Cronenworth

Hello, Kodi 16 is nearing release and I would like to get out in front of it with some testing. Here are the RPMs and SRPMs for Kodi 16 beta 3: http://cchtml.com/kodi16/ A new library, dcadec, is now required and I will bring it into RPMFusion shortly. Please let me know if any issues here or in bugzilla. Thanks, Michael

8 years, 2 months

1
1
0 / 0

[Bug 2433] New: Review request: qmmp-plugin-pack-freeworld - A set of extra plugins for Qmmp

by RPM Fusion Bugzilla

https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2433 Bug #: 2433 Summary: Review request: qmmp-plugin-pack-freeworld - A set of extra plugins for Qmmp 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: kvolny(a)redhat.com CC: rpmfusion-package-review(a)rpmfusion.org Spec URL: http://kvolny.fedorapeople.org/qmmp-plugin-pack-freeworld.spec SRPM URL: http://kvolny.fedorapeople.org/qmmp-plugin-pack-freeworld-0.6.1-1.fc17.sr... Description: Plugins for Qmmp from Qmmp Plugin Pack that cannot be included in Fedora. * MPG123 - MPEG v1/2 layer1/2/3 decoder using of libmpg123 library I guess the reason why not in Fedora is obvious after reading the Description ... mp3 stuff. The rest of the plugins was submitted into Fedora here: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=844740 rpmlint output: [kvolny@kvolny SRPMS]$ rpmlint -i qmmp-plugin-pack-freeworld-0.6.1-1.fc17.src.rpm 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. [kvolny@kvolny x86_64]$ rpmlint -i qmmp-plugin-pack-freeworld-0.6.1-1.fc17.x86_64.rpm qmmp-plugin-pack-freeworld-debuginfo-0.6.1-1.fc17.x86_64.rpm qmmp-plugin-pack-freeworld.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/share/doc/qmmp-plugin-pack-freeworld-0.6.1/COPYING The Free Software Foundation address in this file seems to be outdated or misspelled. Ask upstream to update the address, or if this is a license file, possibly the entire file with a new copy available from the FSF. 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 0 warnings. - I've asked Ilja via email to resolve the license issue upstream -- 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.

8 years, 3 months

2
26
0 / 0

Introduction, potentially packaging Dwarf Fortress for -nonfree

by Ben Rosser

Hello! I'm a sponsored Fedora packager, who's new to rpmfusion, and undergraduate student (senior) at Johns Hopkins University studying computer science and physics. The reason I'm finally (after using it since Fedora 13) looking into contributing to rpmfusion is: A few weeks ago, a friend mentioned that Dwarf Fortress ( http://www.bay12games.com/dwarves/), a closed-source but free-to-redistribute game, is packaged for Arch Linux. I was surprised because I didn't actually realize DF was free to redistribute, but I checked the license and confirmed that indeed, it is [*]. So I started wondering if this was something we could get into rpmfusion-nonfree. While Dwarf Fortress is *mostly* closed source, the graphics code is open source; the Arch maintainer is tracking changes to the graphics code in a github repository here: https://github.com/svenstaro/dwarf_fortress_unfuck. So the Arch package ( https://www.archlinux.org/packages/community/i686/dwarffortress/ ) compiles the graphics code, removes the bundled libraries, and also includes a .desktop file and launcher script. Based heavily on the Arch package, I've written an RPM spec file: https://mars.arosser.com/fedora/rpmfusion/dwarffortress.spec. Note that the package only builds for i386, but can be installed on x86_64 just fine. I guess I have two questions before submitting an actual review request for this: 1. Is this the sort of thing that belongs in rpmfusion-nonfree? Are we able to package this? I believe so, but wanted to check first. 2. How do rpmfusion policies feel about the use of /opt for packages? I know that in Fedora, it's very strongly discouraged. The Arch package drops Dwarf Fortress into /opt/dwarfforrtress; my RPM currently does the same thing. It could be moved elsewhere, but I'm not entirely sure where since there are both binaries and data (so /usr/share/dwarffortress would probably be a bad path, for instance). Thanks in advance! Ben Rosser [*] The full text of the license for DF reads: "Copyright (c) 2002-2012. All rights are retained by Tarn Adams, save the following: you may redistribute the binary and accompanying files, unmodified, provided you do so free of charge. If you'd like to distribute a modified version of the game or portion of the archive and are worried about copyright infringement, please contact Tarn Adams at toadyone(a)bay12games.com."

8 years, 3 months

1
0
0 / 0

Hold package in testing?

by Richard Shaw

Since everything is manual I don't know how difficult this would be but I would like to build OpenShot 2.0 so that those who want to try it out can but it's still officially considered beta. Thoughts? Thanks, Richard

8 years, 3 months

3
4
0 / 0

[Bug 118] Review Request: cinelerra-cv - Advanced audio and video capturing, compositing, and editing

by RPM Fusion Bugzilla

https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=118 --- Comment #55 from Antonio Trande <anto.trande(a)gmail.com> 2016-01-15 20:37:16 CET --- Created attachment 1546 --> https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/attachment.cgi?id=1546 Proposed patch -- 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.

8 years, 3 months

1
0
0 / 0

[Bug 118] Review Request: cinelerra-cv - Advanced audio and video capturing, compositing, and editing

by RPM Fusion Bugzilla

https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=118 --- Comment #54 from Antonio Trande <anto.trande(a)gmail.com> 2016-01-15 20:36:15 CET --- Created attachment 1545 --> https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/attachment.cgi?id=1545 Proposed spec file (In reply to comment #52) > > - AutoTools: Obsoleted m4s found > AC_PROG_LIBTOOL found in: cinelerra-cv-2.3/configure.ac:94 > See https://fedorahosted.org/FedoraReview/wiki/AutoTools > > - Why are execstack commands not executed? > > - unused-direct-shlib-dependency warnings > See > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Common_Rpmlint_issues?rd=PackageMaintainer... > > - undefined-non-weak-symbol /usr/lib64/libguicast.so.1.0.0 > Probably, needs a link to the libquicktimehv library > > > - %global __global_ldflags %(echo %{__global_ldflags} | sed > 's/-specs=.*hardened-ld//' ) > Why? > I seen hardened-ld breaks linkage. I have done some change to your spec file and added a patch: hardened definitions are activated and all hardened flags honored now. Just a issue: some library-not-linked-against-libc errors but they seem false positive. > - non-conffile-in-etc /etc/sysctl.d/cinelerra-cv.conf > See > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Common_Rpmlint_issues?rd=PackageMaintainer... See also http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#binfmt.d.2C_sysctl.d_a... -- 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.

8 years, 3 months

1
0
0 / 0

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

rpmfusion-developers January 2016