[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 years
[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.
4 years
[Bug 5154] New: Review request: libldac - LDAC library from AOSP
by RPM Fusion Bugzilla
https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=5154
Bug ID: 5154
Summary: Review request: libldac - LDAC library from AOSP
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: gombosg(a)gmail.com
CC: rpmfusion-package-review(a)rpmfusion.org
namespace: free
Repo:
https://pagure.io/libldac
Spec:
https://pagure.io/libldac/blob/master/f/libldac.spec
SRPM:
https://pagure.io/libldac/blob/master/f/libldac-2.0.2.2-1.fc30.src.rpm
Description:
LDAC library from AOSP.
LDAC is an audio coding technology developed by Sony.
It enables the transmission of High-Resolution Audio content,
even over a Bluetooth connection.
pulseaudio-modules-bluetooth-aptx cannot be included in Fedora due to a build
dependency on ffmpeg.
For compatible headsets, this package enables LDAC encoding over Bluetooth for
pulseaudio-modules-bluetooth-aptx.
Rpmlint output - spec:
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.
Rpmlint output - binary:
libldac.x86_64: W: unstripped-binary-or-object
/usr/lib64/libldacBT_abr.so.2.0.2.2
libldac.x86_64: W: unstripped-binary-or-object
/usr/lib64/libldacBT_enc.so.2.0.2.2
libldac.x86_64: W: no-documentation
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 3 warnings.
Please let me know if binary stripping is needed and how to do it.
The .so file names are libldacBT.so... in the source cmake files, libldac and
libldacBT are both used, but IMHO the package should simply be named libldac.
This is my first RPM(Fusion) package.
I'm looking for a sponsor because of this!
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are the assignee for the bug.
4 years
[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.
4 years, 3 months
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)
5 years, 2 months
[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.
5 years, 2 months
[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.
5 years, 5 months
