[Bug 4958] New: Review request: sch_cake-kmod - Kernel module (kmod)
for sch_cake
by RPM Fusion Bugzilla
https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=4958
Bug ID: 4958
Summary: Review request: sch_cake-kmod - Kernel module (kmod)
for sch_cake
Product: Package Reviews
Version: Current
Hardware: All
OS: GNU/Linux
Status: NEW
Severity: enhancement
Priority: P1
Component: Review Request
Assignee: rpmfusion-package-review(a)rpmfusion.org
Reporter: dagofthedofg(a)gmail.com
CC: rpmfusion-package-review(a)rpmfusion.org
namespace: free
URLs:
https://github.com/survient/sch_cake/raw/master/sch_cake-kmod.spec
https://github.com/survient/sch_cake/raw/master/sch_cake.spec
https://github.com/survient/sch_cake/raw/master/sch_cake-kmod-0-1.fc28.sr...
https://github.com/survient/sch_cake/raw/master/sch_cake-0-1.fc28.src.rpm
Description:
Kernel Module containing Cake queueing discipline(qdisc).
https://www.bufferbloat.net/projects/codel/wiki/CakeTechnical/
Justification:
Kernel modules are not allowed in the stock Fedora Repositories
rpmlint:
$ rpmlint rpmbuild/SRPMS/sch_cake-kmod-0-1.fc28.src.rpm
sch_cake-kmod.src:6: W: mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs (spaces: line 6, tab: line
6)
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings.
# Not sure what warning is, checked for spaces and didn't see any where
specified in spec file
$ rpmlint rpmbuild/SRPMS/sch_cake-0-1.fc28.src.rpm
sch_cake.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) kmod -> mod, k mod, mood
sch_cake.src: W: name-repeated-in-summary C sch_cake
sch_cake.src:1: W: mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs (spaces: line 1, tab: line 1)
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 3 warnings.
# Summary follows convention of other rpmfusion kmods including crystalhd
# Again not sure what spacing warning is, spec file looks clean
$ rpmlint rpmbuild/RPMS/x86_64/akmod-sch_cake-0-1.fc28.x86_64.rpm
akmod-sch_cake.x86_64: W: no-documentation
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings.
# No documentation provided upstream, usage info contained in source files
$ rpmlint rpmbuild/RPMS/x86_64/kmod-sch_cake-0-1.fc28.x86_64.rpm
kmod-sch_cake.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) Metapackage -> Meta
package, Meta-package, Prepackage
kmod-sch_cake.x86_64: W: no-documentation
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings.
# kmodtool generates Summary, no way to tweak it without it being fixed
upstream
# No documentation provided upstream
$ rpmlint rpmbuild/RPMS/x86_64/sch_cake-0-1.fc28.x86_64.rpm
sch_cake.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) kmod -> mod, k mod, mood
sch_cake.x86_64: W: name-repeated-in-summary C sch_cake
sch_cake.x86_64: E: no-binary
sch_cake.x86_64: W: no-documentation
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 3 warnings.
# Summary follows convention of other rpmfusion kmods
# userland package, no binaries included
# No documentation provided upstream
Notes:
This is my first RPMFusion package submission
I am seeking a sponsor
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are the assignee for the bug.
2 years, 10 months
[Bug 4960] New: Review request: sch_cake - Kernel module (kmod) for
sch_cake
by RPM Fusion Bugzilla
https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=4960
Bug ID: 4960
Summary: Review request: sch_cake - Kernel module (kmod) for
sch_cake
Product: Package Reviews
Version: Current
Hardware: All
OS: GNU/Linux
Status: NEW
Severity: enhancement
Priority: P1
Component: Review Request
Assignee: rpmfusion-package-review(a)rpmfusion.org
Reporter: dagofthedofg(a)gmail.com
CC: rpmfusion-package-review(a)rpmfusion.org
namespace: free
URLs:
https://github.com/survient/sch_cake/raw/master/sch_cake.spec
https://github.com/survient/sch_cake/raw/master/sch_cake-0-1.fc28.src.rpm
Description:
sch_cake common files.
https://www.bufferbloat.net/projects/codel/wiki/CakeTechnical/
Justification:
Kernel modules are not allowed in the stock Fedora Repositories
rpmlint:
$ rpmlint rpmbuild/SRPMS/sch_cake-0-1.fc28.src.rpm
sch_cake.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) kmod -> mod, k mod, mood
sch_cake.src: W: name-repeated-in-summary C sch_cake
sch_cake.src:1: W: mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs (spaces: line 1, tab: line 1)
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 3 warnings.
# Summary follows convention of other rpmfusion kmods including crystalhd
# Not sure what spacing warning is, spec file looks clean
$ rpmlint rpmbuild/RPMS/x86_64/sch_cake-0-1.fc28.x86_64.rpm
sch_cake.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) kmod -> mod, k mod, mood
sch_cake.x86_64: W: name-repeated-in-summary C sch_cake
sch_cake.x86_64: E: no-binary
sch_cake.x86_64: W: no-documentation
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 3 warnings.
# Summary follows convention of other rpmfusion kmods
# userland package, no binaries included
# No documentation provided upstream
Notes:
This is my first RPMFusion package submission
I am seeking a sponsor
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are the assignee for the bug.
2 years, 10 months
[Bug 5022] New: Review Request: wireguard - Fast, modern, secure VPN
tunnel
by RPM Fusion Bugzilla
https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=5022
Bug ID: 5022
Summary: Review Request: wireguard - Fast, modern, secure VPN
tunnel
Product: Package Reviews
Version: Current
Hardware: x86_64
OS: GNU/Linux
Status: NEW
Severity: enhancement
Priority: P1
Component: Review Request
Assignee: rpmfusion-package-review(a)rpmfusion.org
Reporter: zebob.m(a)gmail.com
CC: rpmfusion-package-review(a)rpmfusion.org
namespace: free
SPEC url: https://eclipseo.fedorapeople.org/wireguard/wireguard.spec
SRPM url:
https://eclipseo.fedorapeople.org/wireguard/wireguard-0.0.20180910-1.fc30...
Koji scratch-build: F30: http://koji.rpmfusion.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=258182
EL7: http://koji.rpmfusion.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=258162
Description:
WireGuard is a novel VPN that runs inside the Linux Kernel and utilizes
state-of-the-art cryptography. It aims to be faster, simpler, leaner,
and more useful than IPSec, while avoiding the massive headache. It intends
to be considerably more performant than OpenVPN. WireGuard is designed as a
general purpose VPN for running on embedded interfaces and super computers
alike, fit for many different circumstances. It runs over UDP.
FAS username: eclipseo
Why this package is not eligible to be included in Fedora.?
It's the kmod common package.
RPMlint output:
$ rpmlint wireguard-0.0.20180910-1.fc28.noarch.rpm
wireguard-0.0.20180910-1.fc28.src.rpm
wireguard.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US performant -> perform
ant, perform-ant, performance
wireguard.noarch: W: no-documentation
wireguard.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US performant -> perform
ant, perform-ant, performance
2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 3 warnings.
The Wireguard packages have been tested successfully on F28 with Mullvad VPN
service.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are the assignee for the bug.
2 years, 10 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.
3 years
Devtoolset available in rpmfusion el7 buildroot
by Nicolas Chauvet
Hi,
With the current work to update ffmpeg to 3.x in el7 I expect that new
application could be enabled on el7. Because some might requires an
even newer compiler than the base one, please remind that the
devtoolset scl is available. You can use a gcc 7 without much effort
using that.
(have a look at the chromium or vlc package for a sample).
Thx for your notice
--
-
Nicolas (kwizart)
4 years
[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.
4 years, 3 months
[Bug 4750] New: Review request: deepin-music - Deepin Music Player
by RPM Fusion Bugzilla
https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=4750
Bug ID: 4750
Summary: Review request: deepin-music - Deepin Music Player
Product: Package Reviews
Version: Current
Hardware: x86_64
OS: GNU/Linux
Status: NEW
Severity: enhancement
Priority: P1
Component: Review Request
Assignee: rpmfusion-package-review(a)rpmfusion.org
Reporter: sztsian(a)gmail.com
CC: rpmfusion-package-review(a)rpmfusion.org,
sensor.wen(a)gmail.com
Blocks: 2
namespace: free
Spec URL: https://zsun.fedorapeople.org/pub/pkgs/rpmfusion/deepin-music.spec
SRPM URL:
https://zsun.fedorapeople.org/pub/pkgs/rpmfusion/deepin-music-3.1.7.2-2.f...
Description: Deepin Music Player
Fedora Account System Username: zsun
RPMFusion FAS Username: zsun
* Why this package is not eligible to be included in Fedora:
This depends on some codec that are not accepted in Fedora.
* This is my second RPM Fusion package. (The other is bug 4749 which is also
just filed)
* I am a current Fedora Packager
* RPMlint:
$ rpmlint *.rpm
deepin-music.src: I: enchant-dictionary-not-found zh_CN
deepin-music.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US tweakful -> tweak
deepin-music.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US gstreamer ->
streamer, g streamer, steamer
deepin-music.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US quanpin -> piquant
deepin-music.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US tweakful -> tweak
deepin-music.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US gstreamer ->
streamer, g streamer, steamer
deepin-music.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US quanpin -> piquant
For these above, they are from upstream and I believe they are expected.
deepin-music.x86_64: E: zero-length
/usr/share/dbus-1/services/com.deepin.dde.music.service
Upstream provided an empty file.
https://github.com/linuxdeepin/deepin-music/blob/master/music-player/data...
deepin-music.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary deepin-music
deepin-music.x86_64: E: invalid-desktopfile
/usr/share/applications/deepin-music.desktop file contains group "Next Shortcut
Group", but groups extending the format should start with "X-"
deepin-music.x86_64: E: invalid-desktopfile
/usr/share/applications/deepin-music.desktop file contains group "PlayPause
Shortcut Group", but groups extending the format should start with "X-"
deepin-music.x86_64: E: invalid-desktopfile
/usr/share/applications/deepin-music.desktop file contains group "Previous
Shortcut Group", but groups extending the format should start with "X-"
For desktop file related. This music player is originally part of Deepin
Desktop Environment(Short as DDE), and above are written under DDE's way. So I
believe I shouldn't modify them.
deepin-music-debuginfo.x86_64: E: useless-provides debuginfo(build-id)
For debuginfo(build-id), all packages built in rawhide contains this, so I
assume this won't hurt.
deepin-music-debugsource.x86_64: W: no-documentation
deepin-music-devel.x86_64: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib
deepin-music-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation
5 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 5 errors, 10 warnings.
Referenced Bugs:
https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2
[Bug 2] Tracker: New packages awaiting review
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are the assignee for the bug.
4 years, 6 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, 6 months
