[PATCH 0/2] 2 complicated changes
by Sérgio Basto
use include configuration in .cfg , if we use include all .cfg will be more
clean, less code and much more pratic.
I'd like see if anyone have an explanation about why we replace basearch and
releasever ? any thing that I'm missing ?
Sérgio M. Basto (2):
Use include include statement
Do not replace basearch and releasever
el-round.sh | 8 ++++----
round.sh | 8 ++++----
template_init | 3 +++
3 files changed, 11 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-)
create mode 100644 template_init
--
2.5.5
7 years, 11 months
[Bug 30] New: Tracker : Sponsorship Request
by RPM Fusion Bugzilla
http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=30
Summary: Tracker : Sponsorship Request
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: lxtnow(a)gmail.com
CC: lxtnow(a)gmail.com
Estimated Hours: 0.0
This is a tracker bug for sponsorship requests in RPM Fusion. All new RPM
Fusion
contributors who need to be sponsored should block this bug.
SPONSORS: When you accept the responsibility of sponsoring, please
take it off of this list.
Note: All members who already contribute to the Fedora Project (Packaging Side)
no need to request for sponsorship.
--
Configure bugmail: http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are the assignee for the bug.
7 years, 11 months
Plan for RPM Fusion f25 GA
by Nicolas Chauvet
Hi,
As we are nearing the f25 release (Go/NoGo meeting is this Thusday in
Fedora). Here is the plan for RPM Fusion.
I plan to make the very last push of packages for f25 GA repo this
Thursday, and the move to release layout on Sunday at last.
I won't be available on Friday/Saturday, so please do not make
untested content after Thursday.
(specially if Fedora is Gold). I will probably move build into updates
at that time.
About x265 late update, I expect it to be done as updates as an
exception (even if there is an ABI break). Given the limited number of
packages to rebuild. And if it goes smooth, maybe update ffmpeg-3.2
along. So this can be done after the release.
Please remember that if you have something in mind as a blocker, use
https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=4313
Thx
--
-
Nicolas (kwizart)
7 years, 11 months
x265 updates ?
by Sérgio Basto
Hello,
we got new version 2.1 [1]
dnf repoquery --disablerepo=* --enablerepo=rpmfusion-{non,}free-rawhide \
--whatrequires x265-libs --alldeps --srpm | sort | \
grep src$ | sed 's/\(-[^-]\+\)\{2\}$//' | uniq
avidemux
ffmpeg
gstreamer1-plugins-bad-freeworld
vlc
x265
Also bug [2] is opened almost 3 months ago , may we update F25 with 2.1
? I will perform some tests now, while is not decided ...
Thanks,
[1]
https://ftp.videolan.org/pub/videolan/x265/
[2]
https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=4199
--
Sérgio M. B.
7 years, 11 months
Updating ffmpeg to 3.2 in rawhide
by Julian Sikorski
Hi list,
ffmpeg-3.2 was released two days ago. As mentioned by Nicolas, this
update is only in scope for F26 currently. The good news is that it is
looking better than I ever remember ffmpeg rebase to be:
- there are currently 48 ffmpeg dependencies in rpmfusion git
- 46 build fine against 3.2 with no changes required
- kodi requires an upstream patch [1]
- gpac fails due to what looks to be an openssl issue (undefined
reference to `SSLeay_add_all_algorithms'), likely caused by the
openssl-1.0.2j → openssl-1.1.0b bump in Fedora. build.log attached.
Given the above, I would be looking at updating ffmpeg and rebuilding
its dependencies next weekend at the latest. Should anyone disagree,
please speak up.
Best regards,
Julian
[1]
https://github.com/xbmc/xbmc/commit/2e2e7a5e7ff18dcf3ba3fae2d2ea6d0d9b42b7ea
7 years, 11 months
[Bug 351] New: Review request: vmware-requirements - Installs packages needed for VMware's virtualization programs to run
by RPM Fusion Bugzilla
http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=351
Summary: Review request: vmware-requirements - Installs packages
needed for VMware's virtualization programs to run
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: dtimms(a)iinet.net.au
CC: rpmfusion-package-review(a)rpmfusion.org
Estimated Hours: 0.0
Spec URL:
http://members.iinet.net.au/~timmsy/vmware-requirements/vmware-requiremen...
SRPM URL:
http://members.iinet.net.au/~timmsy/vmware-requirements/vmware-requiremen...
Description:
Use this package to install the packages required to run vmware locally.
This package does not include the free vmware-server or vmware-server-console
package itself. They can be obtained from the vmware website.
Can't be in Fedora:
- it's a meta package
- it enables use of non fedora software
- the proper packaging should really be done by the upstream author.
- the upstream is not open source
- the upstream do not support the fedora distribution
- FESCO discussed it recently, and voted that helper packages for third party
apps shall be blocked from Fedora:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=478007#c17
The original Fedora review request:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=478007
FESCO item tracking:
https://fedorahosted.org/fesco/ticket/35
FESCO discussion should show up soon for 2009-01-30:
http://bpepple.fedorapeople.org/fesco/
=====
rpmlint:
vmware-requirements.src:34: E: hardcoded-library-path in
/lib/security/pam_unix.so
vmware-requirements.src:51: E: hardcoded-library-path in
/usr/lib/libgdk-x11-2.0.so.0
vmware-requirements.src:53: E: hardcoded-library-path in /usr/lib/libX11.so.6
vmware-requirements.src:55: E: hardcoded-library-path in /usr/lib/libXtst.so.6
vmware-requirements.src:57: E: hardcoded-library-path in /usr/lib/libXt.so.6
vmware-requirements.i386: W: no-documentation
vmware-requirements.i386: E: no-binary
vmware-requirements-server.i386: W: no-documentation
vmware-requirements-server.i386: E: devel-dependency kernel-devel
3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 7 errors, 2 warnings.
=====
So, do we want to allow helper packages like this in RPM Fusion ?
Note it does not Require: any packages external to Fedora/RPM Fusion, nor does
it attempt to download them.
Others have mentioned that other external no source apps might include skype
etc, that could receive similar RPM Fusion packaging assistance ?
--
Configure bugmail: http://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.
7 years, 11 months