July 2017 - rpmfusion-developers

[Bug 2134] New: Review Request: pyspotify - Python bindings for libspotify

by RPM Fusion Bugzilla

https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2134 Bug #: 2134 Summary: Review Request: pyspotify - Python bindings for libspotify 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: jdieter(a)gmail.com CC: rpmfusion-package-review(a)rpmfusion.org Spec URL: http://www.lesbg.com/jdieter/pyspotify.spec SRPM URL: http://www.lesbg.com/jdieter/pyspotify-1.6.1-1.fc16.src.rpm Description: Python bindings for the official Spotify API Why not in Fedora: Requires libspotify which is proprietary -- 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, 2 months

1
12
0 / 0

[Bug 2135] New: Review Request: mopidy - Music server that plays music from Spotify

by RPM Fusion Bugzilla

https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2135 Bug #: 2135 Summary: Review Request: mopidy - Music server that plays music from Spotify 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: jdieter(a)gmail.com CC: rpmfusion-package-review(a)rpmfusion.org Depends on: 2133, 2134 Spec URL: http://www.lesbg.com/jdieter/mopidy.spec SRPM URL: http://www.lesbg.com/jdieter/mopidy-0.6.1-1.fc16.src.rpm Description: Mopidy is a music server that plays music from a user's Spotify account, given that the user has a Spotify Premium Account. Any MPD clients can connect and control the server -- 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, 2 months

1
11
0 / 0

[Bug 3953] New: Review request: dwarffortress - A single-player procedurally generated fantasy game

by RPM Fusion Bugzilla

https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=3953 Bug #: 3953 Summary: Review request: dwarffortress - A single-player procedurally generated fantasy game 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: rosser.bjr(a)gmail.com CC: rpmfusion-package-review(a)rpmfusion.org Source URL: https://www.acm.jhu.edu/~bjr/fedora/dwarffortress/rpmfusion/dwarffortress... SRPM URL: https://www.acm.jhu.edu/~bjr/fedora/dwarffortress/rpmfusion/dwarffortress... Description: Dwarf Fortress is a single-player fantasy game. You can control a dwarven outpost or an adventurer in a randomly generated, persistent world. Although Dwarf Fortress is still in a work in progress, many features have already been implemented. Dwarf Fortress is free to redistribute, but is not open source. Why rpmfusion(-nonfree): Dwarf Fortress is not open source, so cannot be included in Fedora. However, there is an open source component (the graphics library) that should be compiled and linked against the system libraries (rather than the bundled ones included in the download). Other comments: This work is mostly based on the work done for Arch Linux (see https://www.archlinux.org/packages/multilib/x86_64/dwarffortress/) As I mentioned on the list, this is my first rpmfusion package, but I *am* a sponsored Fedora packager. Since then, I've updated the spec for the newest upstream release of DF and also broken up the archive; rather than place it in /opt, I've opted to put the "binaries" into %_libexecdir and the data into %_datadir. The "dwarffortress" script originally written for Arch Linux has been adjusted; it creates a DF installation in ~/.dwarffortress from these locations and then executes out of there, using symlinks. Another thing to please note is that the package only builds on i686 so I have made use of the "ExclusiveArch" tag. rpmlint output: [bjr@irune SPECS]$ rpmlint ../RPMS/i686/dwarffortress-0.42.05-3.fc22.i686.rpm dwarffortress.i686: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) procedurally -> procedural dwarffortress.i686: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US dwarven -> warden dwarffortress.i686: W: invalid-license Dwarf Fortress dwarffortress.i686: E: binary-or-shlib-defines-rpath /usr/libexec/dwarffortress/Dwarf_Fortress ['$ORIGIN'] dwarffortress.i686: W: unstripped-binary-or-object /usr/libexec/dwarffortress/libgraphics.so dwarffortress.i686: W: no-manual-page-for-binary dwarffortress [bjr@irune SPECS]$ rpmlint /var/lib/mock/fedora-22-i386/result/dwarffortress-0.42.05-3.fc22.src.rpm dwarffortress.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) procedurally -> procedural dwarffortress.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US dwarven -> warden dwarffortress.src: W: invalid-license Dwarf Fortress dwarffortress.src:45: W: macro-in-comment %{buildroot} dwarffortress.src:77: W: macro-in-comment %{_libdir} dwarffortress.src:77: W: macro-in-comment %{buildroot} dwarffortress.src:77: W: macro-in-comment %{optdir} Of these, I think the main objections that aren't spelling errors or comments are: -The rpath/unstripped binary error/warning. Dwarf_Fortress is the actual "binary" that is closed-source; I don't think we can do anything about this. -The license. Is there a specific way I should reference a custom license? The Dwarf Fortress license text is as follows: "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. This software is still in development, and this means that there are going to be problems, including serious problems that, however unlikely, might damage your system or the information stored on it. Please be aware of this before playing." For testing purposes a RPM repository is available here: https://www.acm.jhu.edu/~bjr/fedora/dwarffortress/ (along with the public GPG key). I've tested these packages on both Fedora 22 and Fedora 23. -- 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, 2 months

1
19
0 / 0

[Bug 3508] New: Review request: grive-0.3.0.x86_64 - Grive for Fedora 21

by RPM Fusion Bugzilla

https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=3508 Bug #: 3508 Summary: Review request: grive-0.3.0.x86_64 - Grive for Fedora 21 Classification: Unclassified Product: Package Reviews Version: Current Platform: x86_64 OS/Version: GNU/Linux Status: NEW Severity: normal Priority: P5 Component: Review Request AssignedTo: rpmfusion-package-review(a)rpmfusion.org ReportedBy: shawn.lopresto(a)gmail.com CC: rpmfusion-package-review(a)rpmfusion.org Created attachment 1395 --> https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/attachment.cgi?id=1395 Grive RPM This is my first rpmfusion package submission RPM for installing grive on Fedora 21 RPM - http://s000.tinyupload.com/?file_id=26697798978464013831 SRPM - http://s000.tinyupload.com/?file_id=98907194297236318947 SPEC File - http://s000.tinyupload.com/?file_id=19518635657234910713 -- 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, 3 months

1
4
0 / 0

[Bug 3805] New: Review request: cannonball - An Enhanced OutRun Engine

by RPM Fusion Bugzilla

https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=3805 Bug #: 3805 Summary: Review request: cannonball - An Enhanced OutRun 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: musuruan(a)gmail.com CC: rpmfusion-package-review(a)rpmfusion.org https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/12575912/reviews/cannonball.spec https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/12575912/reviews/cannonball-0.3-1.fc2... Description: Cannonball is a program which allows you to play an enhanced version of Yu Suzuki's seminal arcade racer, OutRun, on a variety of systems: - 60 fps gameplay (smoother than the original game) - True widescreen mode (extend the play area by 25%) - High Resolution mode (improves sprite scaling) - Time Trial Mode - Cheats - Customisable Music - High Score Saving - Western, Japanese & prototype track support - Analog & Digital controllers supported - Force Feedback / Haptic support (Windows only) - Fixes bugs present in the original game Why not in Fedora: Emulators are not allowed in Fedora Rpmlint output: $ rpmlint /home/andrea/rpmbuild/SRPMS/cannonball-0.3-1.fc21.src.rpm cannonball.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US gameplay -> game play, game-play, nameplate cannonball.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US widescreen -> wide screen, wide-screen, windscreen cannonball.src: W: invalid-license Custom 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 3 warnings. $ rpmlint /home/andrea/rpmbuild/RPMS/x86_64/cannonball-0.3-1.fc21.x86_64.rpm cannonball.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US gameplay -> game play, game-play, nameplate cannonball.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US widescreen -> wide screen, wide-screen, windscreen cannonball.x86_64: W: invalid-license Custom cannonball.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary cannonball 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 4 warnings. $ rpmlint /home/andrea/rpmbuild/RPMS/x86_64/cannonball-debuginfo-0.3-1.fc21.x86_64.rpm cannonball-debuginfo.x86_64: W: invalid-license Custom 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings. AFAIK spelling is correct and the license is fine too since we are in 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.

7 years, 3 months

1
25
0 / 0

[Bug 3600] New: ubuntu-fonts - The font family used in Ubuntu Linux

by RPM Fusion Bugzilla

https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=3600 Bug #: 3600 Summary: ubuntu-fonts - The font family used in Ubuntu Linux 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: holcapek(a)gmail.com CC: rpmfusion-package-review(a)rpmfusion.org - spec file: https://raw.githubusercontent.com/holcapek/ubuntu-fonts-rpm/master/ubuntu... - src rpm: https://github.com/holcapek/ubuntu-fonts-rpm/raw/master/ubuntu-fonts-0.80... - description: The Ubuntu Font Family are a set of matching new libre/open fonts. The development is being funded by Canonical on behalf the wider Free Software community and the Ubuntu project. The technical font design work and implementation is being undertaken by Dalton Maag. - why not in Fedora: Ubuntu Font License is considered non-free: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=961642#c4 - rpmlint on src rpm: ubuntu-fonts.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US libre -> lire, lib re, lib-re > %description is exactly what can be found at http://font.ubuntu.com/about/ ubuntu-fonts.src: W: invalid-license Ubuntu Font License > the reason I'd like to see the package in rpmfusion ubuntu-fonts.src: W: no-%build-section > there's nothing to build, thus no %build secion - rpmlint on binary rpm: ubuntu-fonts.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US libre -> lire, lib re, lib-re ubuntu-fonts.noarch: W: invalid-license Ubuntu Font License - this is my first rpmfusion package - I am already a Fedora package maintainer: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/packager/holcapek/ -- 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, 3 months

1
4
0 / 0

[Bug 4293] Review request: tilem - Emulator and debugger for Texas Instruments Z80-based graphing calculators

by RPM Fusion Bugzilla

https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=4293 Andrew Bauer <zonexpertconsulting(a)outlook.com> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Blocks|3 | --- Comment #22 from Andrew Bauer <zonexpertconsulting(a)outlook.com> --- https://rpmfusion.org/Contributors#Your_package_gets_approved Looks like I forgot to remove the RF_REVIEW flag. I've done that now (I think). So it looks like you can hop over to pkdb and request the new package now. Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=3 [Bug 3] Tracker: Packages under review. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.

7 years, 3 months

1
0
0 / 0

[Bug 4293] Review request: tilem - Emulator and debugger for Texas Instruments Z80-based graphing calculators

by RPM Fusion Bugzilla

https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=4293 --- Comment #21 from Ben Rosser <rosser.bjr(a)gmail.com> --- Quick question, does the ticket need to be put from RF_REVIEW into RF_ACCEPT? (I can do this, but I'm not sure if I should as the submitter). -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.

7 years, 3 months

1
0
0 / 0

[Bug 4293] Review request: tilem - Emulator and debugger for Texas Instruments Z80-based graphing calculators

by RPM Fusion Bugzilla

https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=4293 --- Comment #20 from Nicolas Chauvet <kwizart(a)gmail.com> --- (In reply to Ben Rosser from comment #19) > Awesome, thanks for finishing the review! > > When I asked about BR: coreutils I was told it was "up to the packager's > discretion", so yeah, sadly there isn't a firm guideline here. coreutils is part of the default group of packages populated for a build. as seen in "koji show-groups f26-build" So you can avoid listing it in BR. Only gcc is an exception because it would avoid a dependency on gcc for noarch build. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.

7 years, 3 months

1
0
0 / 0

[Bug 4293] Review request: tilem - Emulator and debugger for Texas Instruments Z80-based graphing calculators

by RPM Fusion Bugzilla

https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=4293 --- Comment #19 from Ben Rosser <rosser.bjr(a)gmail.com> --- Awesome, thanks for finishing the review! When I asked about BR: coreutils I was told it was "up to the packager's discretion", so yeah, sadly there isn't a firm guideline here. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.

7 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 July 2017