[Bug 5104] New: Review request: glmixer - Graphic Live Mixer
by RPM Fusion Bugzilla
https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=5104
Bug ID: 5104
Summary: Review request: glmixer - Graphic Live Mixer
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: mgansser(a)online.de
CC: rpmfusion-package-review(a)rpmfusion.org
namespace: free
Spec URL: https://martinkg.fedorapeople.org/Review/SPECS/glmixer.spec
SRPM URL:
https://martinkg.fedorapeople.org/Review/SRPMS/glmixer-1.7.1837-1.fc29.sr...
Description:Real-time video mixing software for live performance.
Fedora Account System Username: martinkg
this package belongs to rpmfusion, due x264 dependencies.
$ rpmlint -i -v glmixer.spec
/home/martin/rpmbuild/SRPMS/glmixer-1.7.1837-1.fc29.src.rpm
/home/martin/rpmbuild/RPMS/x86_64/glmixer-1.7.1837-1.fc29.x86_64.rpm
/home/martin/rpmbuild/RPMS/x86_64/glmixer-debugsource-1.7.1837-1.fc29.x86_64.rpm
/home/martin/rpmbuild/RPMS/x86_64/glmixer-debuginfo-1.7.1837-1.fc29.x86_64.rpm/home/martin/rpmbuild/RPMS/x86_64/glmixer-debuginfo-1.7.1837-1.fc29.x86_64.rpm
glmixer.spec: I: checking
glmixer.spec: W: invalid-url Source0: GLMixer-1.7.1837-Source.tar.gz
The value should be a valid, public HTTP, HTTPS, or FTP URL.
glmixer.src: I: checking
glmixer.src: I: checking-url http://sourceforge.net/projects/glmixer/ (timeout
10 seconds)
glmixer.src: W: invalid-url Source0: GLMixer-1.7.1837-Source.tar.gz
The value should be a valid, public HTTP, HTTPS, or FTP URL.
glmixer.x86_64: I: checking
glmixer.x86_64: I: checking-url http://sourceforge.net/projects/glmixer/
(timeout 10 seconds)
glmixer-debugsource.x86_64: I: checking
glmixer-debugsource.x86_64: I: checking-url
http://sourceforge.net/projects/glmixer/ (timeout 10 seconds)
(none): E: no installed packages by name
/home/martin/rpmbuild/RPMS/x86_64/glmixer-debuginfo-1.7.1837-1.fc29.x86_64.rpm/home/martin/rpmbuild/RPMS/x86_64/glmixer-debuginfo-1.7.1837-1.fc29.x86_64.rpm
3 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings.
%changelog
* Sat Dec 08 2018 Martin Gansser <martinkg(a)fedoraproject.org> - 1.7.1837-1
- Initial package
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are the assignee for the bug.
4 months, 4 weeks
[Bug 5114] New: Review request: ungoogled-chromium - Chromium, sans
integration with Google
by RPM Fusion Bugzilla
https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=5114
Bug ID: 5114
Summary: Review request: ungoogled-chromium - Chromium, sans
integration with Google
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: dotqvint(a)gmail.com
CC: rpmfusion-package-review(a)rpmfusion.org
Blocks: 2, 30
namespace: free
Full URLs to the spec file, source RPM and binary RPM:
-
https://ungoogled.blob.core.windows.net/ungoogled/review/2018-12-18_1/ung...
-
https://ungoogled.blob.core.windows.net/ungoogled/review/2018-12-18_1/ung...
-
https://ungoogled.blob.core.windows.net/ungoogled/review/2018-12-18_1/ung...
A short description for the package:
ungoogled-chromium is Chromium, sans integration with Google. It also
features
some tweaks to enhance privacy, control, and transparency (almost all of
which
require manual activation or enabling).
ungoogled-chromium retains the default Chromium experience as closely as
possible. Unlike other Chromium forks that have their own visions of a web
browser, ungoogled-chromium is essentially a drop-in replacement for
Chromium.
This package is not eligible to be included in Fedora because of proprietary
codecs.
This is my first RPM Fusion package. I wish to keep on improving it. I also
seek
a sponsor as I'm not a Fedora sponsored packager nor an RPM Fusion sponsored
packager.
-----------------------
rpmlint on source RPM
-----------------------
This package is primarily based on Tom Callaway's <spot(a)fedoraproject.org>
work.
All rpmlint warnings and errors are also reproducible for the source RPM of the
Fedora `chromium` package.
* E: hardcoded-library-path in /usr/lib/libc.so
Caused by this line:
BuildRequires: /lib/libc.so.6 /usr/lib/libc.so
Tom Callaway commented it as follows:
# Really, this is what we want:
# BuildRequires: glibc-devel(x86-32) libgcc(x86-32)
# But, koji only offers glibc32. Maybe that's enough.
# This BR will pull in either glibc.i686 or glibc32.
* W: unversioned-explicit-provides bundled(boringssl)
* W: unversioned-explicit-provides bundled(bspatch)
* W: unversioned-explicit-provides bundled(crashpad)
* W: unversioned-explicit-provides bundled(dmg_fp)
* W: unversioned-explicit-provides bundled(iccjpeg)
* W: unversioned-explicit-provides bundled(mozc)
* W: unversioned-explicit-provides bundled(re2)
* W: unversioned-explicit-provides bundled(skia)
* W: unversioned-explicit-provides bundled(xdg-mime)
* W: unversioned-explicit-provides bundled(xdg-user-dirs)
These warnings are caused by `Provides: bundled(...)` lines. Chromium uses
its
own forks of third-party libraries -- unbundling or versioning seem to be
impossible.
* E: hardcoded-library-path in /usr/lib/%{chromium_browser_channel}
* E: hardcoded-library-path in
/usr/lib/%{chromium_browser_channel}/%{chromium_browser_channel}.sh
* E: hardcoded-library-path in /usr/lib/chrome-sandbox
These errors are caused by `semanage` invocations:
semanage fcontext -a -t bin_t /usr/lib/%{chromium_browser_channel}
semanage fcontext -a -t bin_t
/usr/lib/%{chromium_browser_channel}/%{chromium_browser_channel}.sh
semanage fcontext -a -t chrome_sandbox_exec_t /usr/lib/chrome-sandbox
Tom Callaway commented that semanage itself adjusts the lib directory naming.
* W: mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs (spaces: line 60, tab: line 98)
* W: invalid-url Source2: depot_tools.git-master.tar.gz
Revision of the file is accessible only from the Fedora Lookaside Cache.
-----------------------
rpmlint on x86_64 RPM
-----------------------
The most of the following warnings and errors are reproducible for the Fedora
`chromium` package.
* E: explicit-lib-dependency libcanberra-gtk3(x86-64)
Chromium expects this GTK module for some reason.
* W: unstripped-binary-or-object /usr/lib64/ungoogled-chromium/chrome-sandbox
* W: unstripped-binary-or-object /usr/lib64/ungoogled-chromium/chromedriver
* W: unstripped-binary-or-object /usr/lib64/ungoogled-chromium/headless_shell
* W: unstripped-binary-or-object /usr/lib64/ungoogled-chromium/protoc
* W: unstripped-binary-or-object
/usr/lib64/ungoogled-chromium/swiftshader/libEGL.so
* W: unstripped-binary-or-object
/usr/lib64/ungoogled-chromium/swiftshader/libGLESv2.so
* W: unstripped-binary-or-object
/usr/lib64/ungoogled-chromium/ungoogled-chromium
I'm not sure how to resolve this. Fedora package has similar warnings.
* W: conffile-without-noreplace-flag /etc/ungoogled-chromium/master_preferences
Contains distro-specific settings, noreplace flag seems to be needless.
* E: missing-call-to-setgroups-before-setuid
/usr/lib64/ungoogled-chromium/chrome-sandbox
* E: missing-call-to-chdir-with-chroot
/usr/lib64/ungoogled-chromium/ungoogled-chromium
* E: missing-call-to-chdir-with-chroot
/usr/lib64/ungoogled-chromium/headless_shell
* E: setuid-binary /usr/lib64/ungoogled-chromium/chrome-sandbox root 4755
* E: non-standard-executable-perm /usr/lib64/ungoogled-chromium/chrome-sandbox
4755
I'm not sure what can I do here. Both Fedora package and chromium-vaapi have
similar errors.
* E: script-without-shebang
/usr/lib64/ungoogled-chromium/pyproto/google/protobuf/internal/__init__.py
* E: htaccess-file /usr/lib64/ungoogled-chromium/resources/inspector/.htaccess
* E: zero-length
/usr/lib64/ungoogled-chromium/resources/inspector/emulated_devices/emulated_devices_module.js
* E: zero-length
/usr/lib64/ungoogled-chromium/resources/inspector/js_profiler/js_profiler_module.js
* E: zero-length
/usr/lib64/ungoogled-chromium/resources/inspector/node_debugger/node_debugger_module.js
Resource files.
Referenced Bugs:
https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2
[Bug 2] Tracker: New packages awaiting review
https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=30
[Bug 30] Tracker : Sponsorship Request
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are the assignee for the bug.
8 months, 2 weeks
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)
9 months, 3 weeks
[Bug 5079] New: Review request: wiringpi - PIN based GPIO access
library for BCM283x SoC devices
by RPM Fusion Bugzilla
https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=5079
Bug ID: 5079
Summary: Review request: wiringpi - PIN based GPIO access
library for BCM283x SoC devices
Product: Package Reviews
Version: Current
Hardware: arm
OS: GNU/Linux
Status: NEW
Severity: enhancement
Priority: P1
Component: Review Request
Assignee: rpmfusion-package-review(a)rpmfusion.org
Reporter: zonexpertconsulting(a)outlook.com
CC: rpmfusion-package-review(a)rpmfusion.org
namespace: rpi
Why not Fedora?
---------------
This package is for the raspberry pi only which makes it too specific for the
Fedora repos but ideally suited for the new RPM Fusion rpi namespace
SPECFILE
---------
https://raw.githubusercontent.com/knight-of-ni/specfiles/master/wiringpi....
SOURCE RPM
----------
http://koji.rpmfusion.org/kojifiles/work/tasks/4424/274424/wiringpi-2.46-...
Description
-------------
WiringPi is a PIN based GPIO access library for the BCM2835, BCM2836 and
BCM2837 SoC devices (Raspberry Pi devices). It is usable from C,
C++ and RTB (BASIC) as well as many other languages with suitable
wrappers.
NOTES
-----
This is a modification of the wiringpi specfile from FedBerry, authored by
Vaughan Agrez.
upstream scm is using git, not github. Tarball is checked out via commit but
represents release 2.46.
%install is using the custom target "install-fedora" so not using %make_install
macro
At one point FedBerry called this package "wiringpi-libs", then transitioned to
just "wiringpi". Obsoletes and Conflicts statements were added to prevent
issues. I left these statements in the specfile. Let me know if you don't think
this is necessary.
RPMLINT
--------
$ rpmlint /home/abauer/rpmbuild/SRPMS/wiringpi-2.46-4.fc28.src.rpm
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.
$ rpmlint /home/abauer/rpmbuild/RPMS/armv7hl/wiringpi*.rpm
6 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are the assignee for the bug.
10 months
[Bug 5122] New: Review Request: omxplayer - Raspberry Pi command
line OMX player
by RPM Fusion Bugzilla
https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=5122
Bug ID: 5122
Summary: Review Request: omxplayer - Raspberry Pi command line
OMX player
Product: Package Reviews
Version: Current
Hardware: arm
OS: GNU/Linux
Status: NEW
Severity: enhancement
Priority: P1
Component: Review Request
Assignee: rpmfusion-package-review(a)rpmfusion.org
Reporter: zonexpertconsulting(a)outlook.com
CC: rpmfusion-package-review(a)rpmfusion.org
namespace: rpi
FAS account: kni
WHY NOT FEDORA?
---------------
This package needs ffmpeg, in addition to raspberrypi-vc.
SPEC URL:
https://raw.githubusercontent.com/knight-of-ni/specfiles/master/omxplayer...
SRPM URL:
http://koji.rpmfusion.org/kojifiles/work/tasks/3453/283453/omxplayer-2018...
DESCRIPTION
-----------
OMXPlayer is a video player specifically made for the Raspberry Pi's GPU.
It relies on the OpenMAX hardware acceleration API, which is the Broadcom's
VideoCore officially supported API for GPU video/audio processing.
NOTES
-----
- I have removed the bundled ffmpeg requirement. The package builds against the
ffmpeg package in the rpi namespace.
- This package has no cmake or autotools. Just a Makefile. The Makefile must be
altered for compatibility. My preference was to use sed to accomplish this,
rather than patch files. I found it easier to manipulate the compiler flags
this way as I was testing.
- This is still a work in progress. I have not yet run the player, but I do
want to start the peer review process to verify my work.
PROVIDES
---------
$ rpm -q --provides omxplayer-20181014-3.7f3faf6.fc29.armv7hl.rpm
omxplayer = 20181014-3.7f3faf6.fc29
omxplayer(armv7hl-32) = 20181014-3.7f3faf6.fc29
REQUIRES
--------
$ rpm -q --requires omxplayer-20181014-3.7f3faf6.fc29.armv7hl.rpm
/usr/bin/bash
fbset
gnu-free-sans-fonts
ld-linux-armhf.so.3
ld-linux-armhf.so.3(GLIBC_2.4)
libasound.so.2
libasound.so.2(ALSA_0.9)
libasound.so.2(ALSA_0.9.0rc4)
libavcodec.so.58
libavcodec.so.58(LIBAVCODEC_58)
libavformat.so.58
libavformat.so.58(LIBAVFORMAT_58)
libavutil.so.56
libavutil.so.56(LIBAVUTIL_56)
libbcm_host.so
libbrcmEGL.so
libbrcmGLESv2.so
libc.so.6
libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.28)
libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.4)
libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.8)
libdbus-1.so.3
libdbus-1.so.3(LIBDBUS_1_3)
libfreetype.so.6
libgcc_s.so.1
libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.5)
libm.so.6
libm.so.6(GLIBC_2.27)
libm.so.6(GLIBC_2.4)
libopenmaxil.so
libpcre.so.1
libpthread.so.0
libpthread.so.0(GLIBC_2.4)
librt.so.1
librt.so.1(GLIBC_2.4)
libstdc++.so.6
libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3)
libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3.8)
libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_ARM_1.3.3)
libstdc++.so.6(GLIBCXX_3.4)
libstdc++.so.6(GLIBCXX_3.4.11)
libstdc++.so.6(GLIBCXX_3.4.15)
libstdc++.so.6(GLIBCXX_3.4.18)
libstdc++.so.6(GLIBCXX_3.4.19)
libstdc++.so.6(GLIBCXX_3.4.20)
libstdc++.so.6(GLIBCXX_3.4.21)
libswresample.so.3
libswresample.so.3(LIBSWRESAMPLE_3)
libswscale.so.5
libvchiq_arm.so
libvcos.so
libz.so.1
omxplayer-libs(armv7hl-32) = 20181014-3.7f3faf6.fc29
rpmlib(CompressedFileNames) <= 3.0.4-1
rpmlib(FileDigests) <= 4.6.0-1
rpmlib(PayloadFilesHavePrefix) <= 4.0-1
rpmlib(PayloadIsXz) <= 5.2-1
rtld(GNU_HASH)
RPMLINT
--------
>omxplayer.src:80: W: macro-in-comment %{commit_date}
>omxplayer.src:81: W: macro-in-comment %{commit_short}
>omxplayer.src:83: W: macro-in-comment %{url}
This is a false positive caused by the way the specfile generates version.h
>omxplayer.armv7hl: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/share/licenses/omxplayer/COPYING
PR sent upstream:
https://github.com/popcornmix/omxplayer/pull/670
>omxplayer.armv7hl: W: spurious-executable-perm /usr/share/man/man1/omxplayer.1.gz
I'm not how this mangpage ended up with execute bit set. Can look into this if
asked to.
>omxplayer.armv7hl: W: no-manual-page-for-binary omxplayer.bin
False positve. omxplayer is a wrapper for omxplayer.bin. Thus, omxplayer.1 is
the man page for this binary.
>omxplayer-desktop.armv7hl: E: explicit-lib-dependency libnotify
The desktop subpackage has libnotify as an installation requirement. I left it
in due to historical reasons. I am not sure why it is there, but I can look
into it if asked.
>omxplayer-desktop.armv7hl: W: no-documentation
This subpackage is nothing but a .desktop file. It doesn't need documentation.
>omxplayer-desktop.armv7hl: W: desktopfile-without-binary /usr/share/applications/omxplayer.desktop lxterminal
The binary is in the base package.
>3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 2 errors, 7 warnings.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are the assignee for the bug.
1 year
[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.
1 year
[Bug 5074] New: Review request: raspberrypi-vc - VideoCore GPU
libraries, utilities and demos for Raspberry Pi
by RPM Fusion Bugzilla
https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=5074
Bug ID: 5074
Summary: Review request: raspberrypi-vc - VideoCore GPU
libraries, utilities and demos for Raspberry Pi
Product: Package Reviews
Version: Current
Hardware: arm
OS: GNU/Linux
Status: NEW
Severity: enhancement
Priority: P1
Component: Review Request
Assignee: rpmfusion-package-review(a)rpmfusion.org
Reporter: zonexpertconsulting(a)outlook.com
CC: rpmfusion-package-review(a)rpmfusion.org
namespace: rpi
Why not Fedora?
---------------
As far as I understand it, this package is too specific (rpi only) to be
eligible for inclusion into the Fedora repos. I can of course research this
more thoroughly if needed.
FAS account name: kni
SPECFILE
---------
https://raw.githubusercontent.com/knight-of-ni/specfiles/master/raspberry...
SOURCE RPM
----------
http://koji.rpmfusion.org/kojifiles/work/tasks/3940/273940/raspberrypi-vc...
Description
-------------
Libraries, utilities and demos for the Raspberry Pi BCM283x SOC GPUs
Essentially, this library will be a needed dependency for any package in the
rpi namespace that accesses the PI's GPU. e.g. omxplayer
NOTES
-----
Credit goes to Vaughan Agrez with the FedBerry project for doing the majority
of the work with this specfile. I have modified it to better fit RPMFusion
packing standards and have removed requirements specific to FedBerry.
This package represents a snapshot from an upstream project that does not have
any releases. Hence, the unusual package name.
This package places the following symlink for compatibility:
/opt/vc -> %{_libdir}/vc
I can see why this has been created, but I'm still on the fence on this one. I
have not tested whether this is truly needed and can look into this further, if
someone thinks we should leave /opt alone.
This will be the first of multiple package requests for the rpi namespace, and
I'm looking forward to receiving feedback for this package request.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are the assignee for the bug.
1 year, 2 months
