[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.
2 years, 4 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.
2 years, 4 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.
2 years, 4 months
[Bug 3900] New: Review Request: tivolibre - Java app and library for decoding TiVo files to standard MPEG files
by RPM Fusion Bugzilla
https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=3900
Bug #: 3900
Summary: Review Request: tivolibre - Java app and library for
decoding TiVo files to standard MPEG files
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: orion(a)cora.nwra.com
CC: rpmfusion-package-review(a)rpmfusion.org
Java app and library for decoding TiVo files to standard MPEG files.
Spec file: http://www.cora.nwra.com/~orion/rpmfusion/tivolibre.spec
SRPM file:
http://www.cora.nwra.com/~orion/rpmfusion/tivolibre-0.7.2-1.fc23.src.rpm
This contains an implementation of the Qualcomm Touring family of encryption
algorithms and has the following restriction:
# 5. The Turing family of encryption algorithms are covered by patents in
# the United States of America and other countries. A free and
# irrevocable license is hereby granted for the use of such patents to
# the extent required to utilize the Turing family of encryption
# algorithms for any purpose, subject to the condition that any
# commercial product utilising any of the Turing family of encryption
# algorithms should show the words "Encryption by QUALCOMM" either on the
# product or in the associated documentation.
and hence should be considered nonfree.
--
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.
2 years, 4 months
[Bug 4105] New: Review request: sdcc-nonfree - Small Device C Compiler - nonfree files
by RPM Fusion Bugzilla
https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=4105
Bug #: 4105
Summary: Review request: sdcc-nonfree - Small Device C Compiler
- nonfree files
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: rrankin(a)ihug.com.au
CC: rpmfusion-package-review(a)rpmfusion.org
Blocks: 2
Spec URL:
https://github.com/rrankin/sdcc-nonfree/blob/master/sdcc-nonfree.spec
Source URL:
https://github.com/rrankin/sdcc-nonfree/blob/master/sdcc-nonfree-3.6.0-1....
Description:
Files derived from Microchip files which are licensed for
use for Microchip devices only. Files used for compiling code for
14 and 16 bit PIC processors. The sdcc --use-non-free flag must
be used to access these files during compilation and linking.
License:
Restricting use for Microchip devices only makes license on the files
in this package non-free from a Fedora perspective.
Rpmlint:
rpmlint sdcc-nonfree.spec
sdcc-nonfree.spec:51: W: configure-without-libdir-spec
0 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings.
note: %configure is not used as files end up in wrong directory
$ rpmlint sdcc-nonfree-3.6.0-1.fc24.x86_64.rpm
sdcc-nonfree.x86_64: W: invalid-license Redistributable but use for Microchip
devices only
sdcc-nonfree.x86_64: E: arch-dependent-file-in-usr-share
/usr/share/sdcc/non-free/lib/pic16/libdev18f66j60.lib
sdcc-nonfree.x86_64: W: binaryinfo-readelf-failed
/usr/share/sdcc/non-free/lib/pic16/libdev18f66j60.lib readelf: Error:
/tmp/rpmlint.sdcc-nonfree-3.6.0-1.fc24.x86_64.rpm.fjysaswk/usr/share/sdcc/non-free/lib/pic16/libdev18f66j60.lib:
did not find a valid archive header
... Repeated for each .lib file in package
sdcc-nonfree.x86_64: W: no-documentation
sdcc-nonfree.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package
/usr/share/sdcc/non-free/include/pic14/pic16lf1829.h
... Repeats for each .h file in package
sdcc-nonfree.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package
/usr/share/sdcc/non-free/include/pic16/pic18lf4580.h
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 724 errors, 1452 warnings.
Notes:
1 W: invalid-license - Licence not suitable for Fedora
2 E: arch-dependent-file-in-usr-share - The .lib files are not lib files
to be run on the host machine but rather to be included in the
generated PIC code. The .libs files may be arch dependant only
do to the endian of the host machine.
/usr/share is where sdcc expects to find them.
3 W: binaryinfo-readelf-failed - The .lib files are not elf files.
4 W: no-documentation - All documentation is in sdcc package
5 W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package - The .h files are required for
sdcc operation on PIC code and thus should not be in a -devel
package
$ rpmlint sdcc-nonfree-devel-3.6.0-1.fc24.noarch.rpm
sdcc-nonfree-devel.noarch: W: invalid-license Redistributable but use for
Microchip devices only
sdcc-nonfree-devel.noarch: W: no-documentation
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings.
Notes:
1 Invalid license is keeping these files out of Fedora
2 Contains source files which are own documentation
This is my first rpmfusion package I am a sponsored Fedora packager.
--
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.
2 years, 4 months
[Bug 3863] New: Review request: game-data-packager - Installer for game data files
by RPM Fusion Bugzilla
https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=3863
Bug #: 3863
Summary: Review request: game-data-packager - Installer for
game data files
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: alexandre.detiste(a)gmail.com
CC: rpmfusion-package-review(a)rpmfusion.org
Various games are divided into two logical parts: engine and data.
.
game-data-packager is a tool which builds .rpm files for game
data which cannot be distributed (such as commercial game data).
Almost all ScummVM, Doom, Quake games are supported + others.
http://pkg-games.alioth.debian.org/game-data/
-------------
http://anonscm.debian.org/cgit/pkg-games/game-data-packager.git/tree/tool...
The RPM support has been added _after_ the last release,
so I temporary use dummy snapshot tarballs until next release.
These are built this way:
git archive --prefix=game-data-packager/ --format tar.gz master >
../rpmbuild/SOURCES/game-data-packager.tar.gz
Which makes rmplint complain:
"game-data-packager.src: W: invalid-url Source0: game-data-packager.tar.gz"
-------------
This tool originated in Debian "contrib", because it's
free software, but of no use without non-free assets;
likewise it doesn't belong in Fedora.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1279177 :
"game-data-packager's sole purpose is to repackage non-free game resources into
distro packages. As such it has no place in Fedora itself."
---------------------------
remaining rpmlint:
game-data-packager.noarch: E: zero-length
/etc/game-data-packager/quake3-mirrors
well, maybe GDP should use data from filewatcher to enhance it's mirror
lists.
either at build-time (bad, need internet acces), from time to time,
or at run time. We have SHA1 hashes for files, so the source doesn't
much matter.
http://www.filewatcher.com/m/linuxq3apoint-1.32b-3.x86.run.30923961-0.html
game-data-packager.noarch: E: script-without-shebang
/usr/share/bash-completion/completions/game-data-packager
that's not a script intended to be run,
but a script fragement to be sourced
game-data-packager.noarch: E: script-without-shebang
/usr/share/games/game-data-packager/game_data_packager/games/__init__.py
game-data-packager.noarch: E: script-without-shebang
/usr/share/games/game-data-packager/game_data_packager/version.py
game-data-packager.noarch: E: script-without-shebang
/usr/share/games/game-data-packager/game_data_packager/paths.py
these are generated during the build, a shebang could be added too
-----
This is my first RPM Fusion package.
-------
upstream Makefile lacks a "make install" rule;
having this would allow to trim the specfile.
--
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.
2 years, 7 months
[Bug 4041] New: Review request: mendeleydesktop - rpm of Mendeley
by RPM Fusion Bugzilla
https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=4041
Bug #: 4041
Summary: Review request: mendeleydesktop - rpm of Mendeley
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: mark.harfouche(a)gmail.com
CC: rpmfusion-package-review(a)rpmfusion.org
This is a repackaged version of what is available
on the Mendeley website and attempts to make use
of system libraries instead of the ones packaged
with Mendeley.
srpm:
http://markharfouche.com/~makerpm/mendeleydesktop-1.16.1-2.fc23.src.rpm
Source rpmlint:
$ rpmlint /home/makerpm/rpmbuild/SRPMS/mendeleydesktop-1.16.1-2.fc23.src.rpm
mendeleydesktop.src: W: invalid-license Proprietary
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings.
Binary rpmlint:
$ rpmlint
/var/lib/mock/fedora-23-x86_64/result/mendeleydesktop-1.16.1-2.fc23.x86_64.rpm
mendeleydesktop.x86_64: W: invalid-license Proprietary
mendeleydesktop.x86_64: E: invalid-soname /usr/lib64/libPDFNetC.so
libPDFNetC.so
mendeleydesktop.x86_64: W: shared-lib-calls-exit /usr/lib64/libPDFNetC.so
exit(a)GLIBC_2.2.5
mendeleydesktop.x86_64: W: shared-lib-calls-exit
/usr/lib64/libMendeley.so.1.16.1 exit(a)GLIBC_2.2.5
mendeleydesktop.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary mendeleydesktop
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 4 warnings.
Justification for errors:
W: invalid-license: Proprietary license is why I need RPMFusion
E: invalid-soname can't change that. The source is a binary.
W: shared-lib-calls-exit: I don't know what this means. I don't think I can
change it
W: no-manual-page-for-binary: I don't think this is necessary. Also, this was a
binary software.
$ rpmlint
/var/lib/mock/fedora-23-x86_64/result/mendeleydesktop-devel-1.16.1-2.fc23.x86_64.rpm
mendeleydesktop-devel.x86_64: W: invalid-license Proprietary
mendeleydesktop-devel.x86_64: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib
mendeleydesktop-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 3 warnings.
W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib <- I don't know what this means
W: no-documentation <- this is a devel package
My first RPMFusion package. I am seeking a sponsor.
--
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, 9 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.
4 years