Re: Retired but not obsoleted package in RPM Fusion
by Sérgio Basto
A list of all removed packages from repos , on file rpmfusion_all.txt "-" means that package was removed "+" means that package was added
Sent from my AndroidEm 04/09/2017 2:19 da tarde, Nicolas Chauvet <kwizart(a)gmail.com> escreveu:
>
> 2017-09-04 15:00 GMT+02:00 Sérgio Basto <sergio(a)serjux.com>:
> ...
> >> Anyone to handle this task ?
> >
> > This weekend I improve my script, the main improvement was query source
> > repos instead x86_84 repo because some packages could be only in i686
> > for example slmodem.
>
> Sorry, but I don't understand anything at all in your email. slmodem
> is unmaintained since 2009.
> What to do about about this list ? What are you trying to achieve ?
>
> --
> -
>
> Nicolas (kwizart)
> _______________________________________________
> rpmfusion-developers mailing list -- rpmfusion-developers(a)lists.rpmfusion.org
> To unsubscribe send an email to rpmfusion-developers-leave(a)lists.rpmfusion.org
6 years, 7 months
Retired but not obsoleted package in RPM Fusion
by Nicolas Chauvet
Hello,
Some packages have been retired from the repository, but can still
live on end-users system because they aren't properly
Obsoleted/provided.
In fedora, there is now an empty package that should take care to
obsolete/provide retired package.
The question is either we should have the same one in rpmfusion or can
we use the fedora one for the same purpose.
Here is a quick list from my own system:
ffmpeg-compat-devel-0:0.6.7-10.fc26
ffmpeg-compat-0:0.6.7-10.fc26
gmtk-1.0.9-2.fc22
gnome-mplayer-1.0.9-3.20150203svn2476.fc22
gnome-mplayer-common-1.0.9-3.20150203svn2476.fc22
Please note that ffmpeg-compat is not yet orphaned, retried, but given
that there is not any remaining users, I plan to retire it real soon
(before branching this tuesday).
To compute the complete list, the plan would be to:
- check packages in repos if they are in good shape (and retire them if not).
- get a list of retired package from pkgdb.
- verify that the obsolete/provide isn't already handled by another
package (or if the package was retired because it was migrated from
fedora).
- check the last version of the package , so a proper obsolete/provide
can be handled.
- create a bug to fedora-obsolete-packages (if accepted there).
Anyone to handle this task ?
Thx
--
-
Nicolas (kwizart)
6 years, 7 months
RPM Fusion update report 2017-09-04
by RPM Fusion Bugzilla
RPM Fusion update report
------------------------
Section free:
-------------
Fedora 25
-------------
Pushed to testing:
chromium-freeworld-60.0.3112.113-1.fc25
ffmpeg-3.1.10-2.fc25
scottfree-1.14-12.fc25
xpra-codecs-freeworld-2.1.1-1.fc25
Pushed to stable:
transcode-1.1.7-20.fc25
xine-lib-1.2.8-4.fc25
xroar-0.34.8-1.fc25
Fedora 26
-------------
Pushed to testing:
chromium-freeworld-60.0.3112.113-1.fc26
ffmpeg-3.3.3-4.fc26
libopenshot-0.1.7-1.fc26
libopenshot-audio-0.1.4-1.fc26
openshot-2.3.4-1.fc26
osmose-0.9.96-10.fc26
scottfree-1.14-12.fc26
xpra-codecs-freeworld-2.1.1-1.fc26
Pushed to stable:
stella-5.0.2-1.fc26
transcode-1.1.7-20.fc26
xine-lib-1.2.8-4.fc26
xroar-0.34.8-1.fc26
xtables-addons-2.13-2.fc26
EL 6
-------------
Pushed to testing:
Pushed to stable:
EL 7
-------------
Pushed to testing:
ffmpeg-2.8.13-1.el7
Pushed to stable:
Section nonfree:
-------------
Fedora 25
-------------
Pushed to testing:
Pushed to stable:
dwarffortress-0.43.05-6.fc25
nvidia-kmod-384.59-1.fc25
nvidia-modprobe-384.47-1.fc25
xorg-x11-drv-nvidia-384.59-4.fc25
Fedora 26
-------------
Pushed to testing:
dgen-sdl-1.33-5.fc26
Pushed to stable:
dwarffortress-0.43.05-6.fc26
nvidia-kmod-384.59-1.fc26
nvidia-modprobe-384.47-1.fc26
xorg-x11-drv-nvidia-384.59-4.fc26
EL 6
-------------
Pushed to testing:
Pushed to stable:
EL 7
-------------
Pushed to testing:
Pushed to stable:
dwarffortress-0.43.05-6.el7
Theses packages will be available in main mirror in few minutes. Wait for local mirrors to sync
Please report any issue to https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org
6 years, 7 months
Mass rebuild and mass branch for f27 ?
by Sérgio Basto
Hello,
As tradition we should mass rebuild "every single package", like and
because Fedora did for this branch and after that we need mass
branching F27.
Also is usually between fedora branching and rpmfusion branching,
rawhide of rpmfusion builds with f27 (fedora branched) and not f28
(rawhide) , I notice that is done by builds that we have today in koji
of rpmfusion .
I also had prepare mock-rpmfusion configurations mock-rpmfusion-free-
27.0 and nonfree , I though if I should add Requires: mock >= 1.4.4
mock version where Fedora 27 configs have been added [1], as the logic
of the configuration depends on new configuration , i.e. mock-rpmfusion
configuration imports f27 fedora configuration ... (anyway all mock
configurations could be much more simpler, I just didn't had time to
expose a better solution (is in my TODO list)).
rfpkg and fedora-packager should work without any modification, I
guess.
So we need some coordination , (Nicolas) what is the plan ?
As already state, IMHO , mass rebuild should be done, first by
ImportantDependencyList [2] a next by alphabetic order excluding
package with kmods or related, very big packages and few more ones, for
curiosity the scripts of releng are [3]
[1]
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2017-1994f3c1e5
[2]
https://rpmfusion.org/ImportantDependencyLists#Mass_rebuild_when_bumpin
g_both_so_versions_of_x264_and_ffmpeg
[3]
https://pagure.io/releng/blob/master/f/scripts/mass-rebuild.py
https://pagure.io/releng/blob/master/f/scripts/find_failures.py
Cheers,
--
Sérgio M. B.
6 years, 7 months
Does build notification from Koji are generally usefull ?
by Nicolas Chauvet
Hi,
I wonder if generating package build notification (and tag migration
from updates-testing to updates) is an useful feature ?
With the update summary I'm sending before each repository update, and
since there is already a SCM commit notification before any build most
of the time, I think it's a redundant feature.
Specially as some notification are failing for unknown reason, I'm
thinking about disabling them at all.
What do you think ?
--
-
Nicolas (kwizart)
6 years, 7 months
[Bug 3601] New: Review request: spread - High performance messaging service
by RPM Fusion Bugzilla
https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=3601
Bug #: 3601
Summary: Review request: spread - High performance messaging
service
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/spread-rpm/master/spread.spec
- src rpm:
https://github.com/holcapek/spread-rpm/raw/master/spread-4.2.0-1.fc21.src...
- descriptoion (common to main package and all subpackages):
Spread is an open source toolkit that can be used in many distributed
applications that require high reliability, high performance, and robust
communication among various subsets of members. The toolkit is designed
to encapsulate the challenging aspects of asynchronous networks and
enable the construction of reliable and scalable distributed applications.
- why not in Fedora:
Spread Open-Source License is not considered a Good License, see
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1077081#c9
- is this my first rpmfusion package
no, I've already filed another package:
https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=3600
- am I seeking a sponsor:
no, I am Fedora sponsored packager
- rpmlint on src rpm:
spread.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US scalable -> salable,
callable, calculable
> this is exactly what http://www.spread.org/ reads
spread.src: W: invalid-license Spread Open Source License
> this is why Fedora don't accept the package
spread.src: W: invalid-url Source0: spread-src-4.2.0.tar.gz
> source tarball cannot be downloaded directly, only through a web form
- rpmlint on rpms:
spread.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US scalable -> salable,
callable, calculable
> dtto as above
spread.x86_64: W: invalid-license Spread Open Source License
> dtto as above
spread-debuginfo.x86_64: W: invalid-license Spread Open Source License
> dtto as above
spread-devel.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US scalable ->
salable, callable, calculable
> dtto as above
spread-devel.x86_64: W: invalid-license Spread Open Source License
> dtto as above
spread-devel.x86_64: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib
> -devel only contains unversioned .so, which is a symlink to versioned .so in -libs
spread-devel.x86_64: W: manual-page-warning
/usr/share/man/man3/SP_multicast.3.gz 28: warning: macro `TB' not defined
> no idea, suggestions welcome
spread-devel.x86_64: W: manual-page-warning
/usr/share/man/man3/FL_multicast.3.gz 50: warning: macro `TB' not defined
> no idea, suggestions welcome
spread-libs.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US scalable ->
salable, callable, calculable
> dtto as above
spread-libs.x86_64: W: invalid-license Spread Open Source License
> dtto as above
spread-libs.x86_64: W: shared-lib-calls-exit /usr/lib64/libspread.so.3.0.0
exit(a)GLIBC_2.2.5
> let's believe the upstream they know what they're doing
spread-static.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US scalable ->
salable, callable, calculable
> dtto as above
spread-static.x86_64: W: invalid-license Spread Open Source License
> dtto as above
--
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.
6 years, 7 months
[Bug 2421] New: booh - Static web-album generator
by RPM Fusion Bugzilla
https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2421
Bug #: 2421
Summary: booh - Static web-album generator
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: casper.le.fantom(a)gmail.com
CC: rpmfusion-package-review(a)rpmfusion.org
Spec URL: http://fantom.fedorapeople.org/booh.spec
SRPM URL: http://fantom.fedorapeople.org/booh-0.9.3-1.fc17.src.rpm
Description:
Yet another Web-Album generator. Highlights:
* automatic rotation of portrait images thanks to information
put by digital camera in .jpg file (EXIF)
* immediate display of images (preloading in browser)
* keep position of "next/previous" hyperlinks in browser
between images
* full video support (including thumbnailing)
* clever use of the whole space of a typical browser window
(the need to scroll portrait images is stupid)
* themability
* sub-albums support
* remember your preferred size of thumbnails accross sub-albums
* multi-processor support to speed up thumbnails generation
* smooth integration of panoramic images in thumbnails pages
* multi-languages web-album navigation (navigation links are
automatically shown in user's language)
* a GUI to input captions, rotate, reorder and remove
images FAST (extensive use of keyboard shortcuts)
* another GUI to classify photos and videos in a powerful manner
Hello, this a new package for rpmfusion-free repository
Have a nice day
--
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.
6 years, 7 months