July 2016 - rpmfusion-developers

[Bug 3429] New: Review request: frobtads - Text interpreter for Tads games

by RPM Fusion Bugzilla

https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=3429 Bug #: 3429 Summary: Review request: frobtads - Text interpreter for Tads games 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: valtri(a)civ.zcu.cz CC: rpmfusion-package-review(a)rpmfusion.org Spec URL: http://scientific.zcu.cz/fedora/frobtads-1.2.3-1/frobtads.spec SRPM URL: http://scientific.zcu.cz/fedora/frobtads-1.2.3-1/frobtads-1.2.3-1.fc22.sr... Description: TADS stands for "Text Adventure Development System". It's a set of tools that allow easy implementation of text adventures, or "Interactive Fiction". Why this package is not eligible to be included in Fedora: non-commercial license of the bundled parts (tads2, tads3) Rpmlint: frobtads.src: W: invalid-license non-commercial frobtads.src:12: W: unversioned-explicit-provides bundled(md5-deutsch-c++) frobtads.src:13: W: unversioned-explicit-provides bundled(sha2-gladman) frobtads.x86_64: W: invalid-license non-commercial frobtads.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary frob frobtads-debuginfo.x86_64: W: invalid-license non-commercial frobtads-devel.x86_64: W: invalid-license non-commercial frobtads-devel.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary tadsc frobtads-devel.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary t3make 4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 9 warnings. invalid-license: non-free licenses are not known to rpmlint unversioned-explicit-provides: this bundled pieces has no version (it is also in other packages) no-manual-page-for-binary: not strictly required by guidelines :-) -- 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.

7 years, 9 months

1
12
0 / 0

[Bug 3493] New: Review request: mp3splt - GTK3 GUI that uses libmp3splt

by RPM Fusion Bugzilla

https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=3493 Bug #: 3493 Summary: Review request: mp3splt - GTK3 GUI that uses libmp3splt 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: tuxor1337(a)web.de CC: rpmfusion-package-review(a)rpmfusion.org mp3splt-gtk - a GTK3 GUI that uses libmp3splt http://tovotu.de/data/rpmfusion/mp3splt-gtk-0.9.2-1.fc21.src.rpm http://tovotu.de/data/rpmfusion/mp3splt-gtk.spec mp3splt is not eligible to be included in Fedora because it depends on libmad at build time which uses patented technology (mp3 codec). rpmlint output: mp3splt-gtk.src: W: no-version-in-last-changelog mp3splt-gtk.x86_64: W: no-version-in-last-changelog mp3splt-gtk-debuginfo.x86_64: W: no-version-in-last-changelog 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 3 warnings. This is my first RPM fusion package. I'm seeking a sponsor since I'm not a Fedora sponsored packager or an RPM Fusion sponsored packager. I basically took the package hosted at ATrpms without major changes (http://packages.atrpms.net/name/mp3splt/). -- 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.

7 years, 9 months

1
15
0 / 0

about rpmfusion wiki anyone knows "TextCha - MoinMoin" answer ?

by Sérgio Basto

Hello ! Or can someone approve my modification on http://rpmfusion.org/Contributors For the record they are: # Resubmit a failed build: rpmfusion-koji resubmit <taskID> (note is not the buildID) # or as alternative git checkout f24; rfpkg build; git checkout master #"rfpkg build" is safe because check before if we already built it, if build is already #done, reply something like: #Could not execute build: Package mpgtx-1.3.1-9.fc23 has already been #built #Note: You can skip this check with --skip-nvr-check. See help for more #info. -- Sérgio M. B.

7 years, 9 months

1
1
0 / 0

Is there a per-package status of the new infra?

by Göran Uddeborg

I'm able to do a mockbuild of m2vmp2cut. But when I try to do it on mythtv-status, I get the error below. Are packages being moved one by one to the new infra? So that I should just keep calm and carry on until the people doing the migration reach mythtv-status? Or has something gone wrong which motivates a bug report? (If I manually put a copy of the sources in the clone directory, the mockbuild finishes successfully.) ================================================================ 23:43 mimmi$ rfpkg mockbuild Downloading mythtv-status-0.10.4.tar.gz ######################################################################## 100.0% Could not download sources: Server returned status code 404

7 years, 9 months

2
3
0 / 0

[rpmfusiom] you should be able to commit and maintain yours packages

by Göran Uddeborg

Sérgio Basto: > Infra of RPMFusion is working ! Thanks Sérgio for your mail. I've been standing on the sidelines for a while to avoid bothering people busy with the infrastructure until you felt ready. Now I tried it out a little, and found a little issue. mimmi$ rfpkg scratch-build Could not execute scratch_build: 'ascii' codec can't decode byte 0xc3 in position 7: ordinal not in range(128) This appears to be because my home directory contains non-ASCII. If I clone to /tmp instead it works. (Or more correctly, it fails in an expected way, as I haven't set up my SSL certificate yet.) I reported something quite similar for fedpkg some time ago (https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1286374) which has been fixed. It does not seem to be exactly the same though, "rfpkg srpm" does work as expecte. Are you ready enough you want reports like these as bugzillas, complete with a way to reproduce? Or do you prefer it on this list a while more?

7 years, 9 months

2
1
0 / 0

[Bug 1328] dvdbackup

by RPM Fusion Bugzilla

https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1328 Sérgio Basto <sergio(a)serjux.com> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |RESOLVED Resolution| |WONTFIX -- 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.

7 years, 9 months

1
0
0 / 0

[Bug 3335] New: Review Request: libde265 - Open H.265 video codec implementation

by RPM Fusion Bugzilla

https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=3335 Bug #: 3335 Summary: Review Request: libde265 - Open H.265 video codec implementation 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: mail(a)joachim-bauch.de CC: rpmfusion-package-review(a)rpmfusion.org Spec URL: http://www.joachim-bauch.de/static/fedora/libde265.spec SRPM URL: http://www.joachim-bauch.de/static/fedora/libde265-0.8-1.fc20.src.rpm Description: libde265 is an open source implementation of the H.265 video codec. It is written from scratch for simplicity and efficiency. Its simple API makes it easy to integrate it into other software. The package was rejected for Fedora (https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1129691) because "HEVC implementations (of which h265 is one) have exactly the same legal problems as previous codecs backed by the MPEG consortium.". See https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1129691 for further information. Feedback from comment #2 of that bug has been incorporated. This is my first RPM fusion package, I'm looking for somebody to review and sponsor it. rpmlint output for the RPMs: ----- $ rpmlint -i ../SRPMS/libde265-0.8-1.fc20.src.rpm libde265.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) codec -> codex, code, codes The value of this tag appears to be misspelled. Please double-check. libde265.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US codec -> codex, code, codes The value of this tag appears to be misspelled. Please double-check. -> "codec" is just fine for this. libde265.src: W: invalid-url Source0: https://github.com/strukturag/libde265/releases/download/v0.8/libde265-0.... HTTP Error 403: Forbidden The value should be a valid, public HTTP, HTTPS, or FTP URL. -> This seems to be a bug in either rpmlint or on Github, I can download the package just fine with wget or curl. 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 3 warnings. ----- $ rpmlint -i ../RPMS/x86_64/libde265-0.8-1.fc20.x86_64.rpm libde265.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) codec -> codex, code, codes The value of this tag appears to be misspelled. Please double-check. libde265.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US codec -> codex, code, codes The value of this tag appears to be misspelled. Please double-check. -> see above 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings. ----- $ rpmlint -i ../RPMS/x86_64/libde265-debuginfo-0.8-1.fc20.x86_64.rpm 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. ----- $ rpmlint -i ../RPMS/x86_64/libde265-devel-0.8-1.fc20.x86_64.rpm libde265-devel.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) codec -> codex, code, codes The value of this tag appears to be misspelled. Please double-check. libde265-devel.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US codec -> codex, code, codes The value of this tag appears to be misspelled. Please double-check. -> see above libde265-devel.x86_64: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib There are only non binary files in /usr/lib so they should be in /usr/share. -> The arch-specific "pkginfo" file must be installed to /usr/lib*, so that's fine. 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 3 warnings. ----- $ rpmlint -i ../RPMS/x86_64/libde265-examples-0.8-1.fc20.x86_64.rpm libde265-examples.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) codec -> codex, code, codes The value of this tag appears to be misspelled. Please double-check. libde265-examples.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US codec -> codex, code, codes The value of this tag appears to be misspelled. Please double-check. -> see above libde265-examples.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary libde265-sherlock265 Each executable in standard binary directories should have a man page. libde265-examples.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary libde265-dec265 Each executable in standard binary directories should have a man page. -> As these are just simple examples, I didn't bother writing man pages yet. Both applications can print their usage information on the commandline. 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 4 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.

7 years, 9 months

1
55
0 / 0

[Bug 30] Tracker : Sponsorship Request

by RPM Fusion Bugzilla

https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=30 Bug 30 depends on bug 3335, which changed state. Bug 3335 Summary: Review Request: libde265 - Open H.265 video codec implementation https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=3335 What |Old Value |New Value ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |RESOLVED Resolution| |FIXED -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the assignee for the bug.

7 years, 9 months

1
0
0 / 0

please update homepage wikipage

by Sérgio Basto

Hi Xavier , Could you please fix rawhide links in "Browse available packages" links for rawhide: download1.rpmfusion.org/free/fedora/development/rawhide/Everything/source... we miss the world "Everything/" in URL and we also have links to armhfp . BTW about wikipage can someone edit http://rpmfusion.org/keys and correct one link: https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=3314 Thanks, -- Sérgio M. B.

7 years, 9 months

2
3
0 / 0

[Bug 3492] New: Review request: mp3splt - Command line program from the mp3splt-project

by RPM Fusion Bugzilla

https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=3492 Bug #: 3492 Summary: Review request: mp3splt - Command line program from the mp3splt-project 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: tuxor1337(a)web.de CC: rpmfusion-package-review(a)rpmfusion.org mp3splt - the command line program from the mp3splt-project http://tovotu.de/data/rpmfusion/mp3splt-2.6.2-1.fc21.src.rpm http://tovotu.de/data/rpmfusion/mp3splt.spec mp3splt is not eligible to be included in Fedora because it depends on libmad at build time which uses patented technology (mp3 codec). rpmlint output: mp3splt.src: W: no-version-in-last-changelog mp3splt.x86_64: W: no-version-in-last-changelog mp3splt-debuginfo.x86_64: W: no-version-in-last-changelog 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 3 warnings. This is my first RPM fusion package. I'm seeking a sponsor since I'm not a Fedora sponsored packager or an RPM Fusion sponsored packager. I basically took the package hosted at ATrpms without major changes (http://packages.atrpms.net/name/mp3splt/). -- 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.

7 years, 9 months

1
13
0 / 0

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

rpmfusion-developers July 2016