[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.
2 weeks, 1 day
[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.
2 weeks, 4 days
[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.
3 weeks, 5 days
[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.
1 month, 1 week
[Bug 5064] New: Review Request: unifi-lts - Ubiquiti UniFi
controller LTS
by RPM Fusion Bugzilla
https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=5064
Bug ID: 5064
Summary: Review Request: unifi-lts - Ubiquiti UniFi controller
LTS
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: hobbes1069(a)gmail.com
CC: rpmfusion-package-review(a)rpmfusion.org
namespace: nonfree
SPEC: https://www.dropbox.com/s/0hdgvb6k3bqy2w7/unifi-lts.spec
SRPM: https://www.dropbox.com/s/zkb4hpjbiuvf8x3/unifi-lts-5.6.40-1.fc28.src.rpm
Description:
Ubiquiti UniFi server is a centralized management system for UniFi suite of
devices. After the UniFi server is installed, the UniFi controller can be
accessed on any web browser. The UniFi controller allows the operator to
instantly provision thousands of UniFi devices, map out network topology,
quickly manage system traffic, and further provision individual UniFi devices.
This is the Long Term Support (LTS) package which also supports Gen 1 APs.
---
This cannot go into Fedora or RPM Fusion Free due to proprietary license.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are the assignee for the bug.
1 month, 2 weeks
[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.
2 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.
2 months, 3 weeks
RPM Fusion mediacenter Spin
by Nicolas Chauvet
I had this project to try to build a dedicated Spin targeting media center
Finally got something basically testable with an iso generated within
koji for x86_64/
The idea is to be able to deploy a Kodi setup using RPM Fusion packages.
(it could be based on another mediacenter solution if relevant).
The current produced media is considered alpha state. Still lot of
work to be done:
- Setup a dedicated "product" to enable firewall, tuning and services
options as appropriate
- Enable initial setup tool
- Have a mean to fetch dvb firmware files and others.
- cockpit is bundled for remote administration
- Better rely on comps group to install packages.
- Have a dedicated page on the wiki.
- Have an ostree version.
Github with the kickstart:
https://github.com/rpmfusion-infra/rpmfusion-kickstarts
PS: please don't share the link widely yet
http://koji.rpmfusion.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=210378
Anyone interested in helping this project ?
--
-
Nicolas (kwizart)
3 months, 1 week