[Bug 5155] New: Review request: pulseaudio-module-bluetooth-aptx -
Bluetooth support for the PulseAudio sound server, supports extra codecs
by RPM Fusion Bugzilla
https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=5155
Bug ID: 5155
Summary: Review request: pulseaudio-module-bluetooth-aptx -
Bluetooth support for the PulseAudio sound server,
supports extra codecs
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/pulseaudio-module-bluetooth-aptx
Spec:
https://pagure.io/pulseaudio-module-bluetooth-aptx/blob/master/f/pulseaud...
SRPM:
https://pagure.io/pulseaudio-module-bluetooth-aptx/blob/master/f/pulseaud...
Description:
Contains Bluetooth audio (A2DP/HSP/HFP) support for the PulseAudio sound
server.
Includes support for LDAC, APTX, APTX-HD, AAC codecs.
pulseaudio-modules-bluetooth-aptx cannot be included in Fedora due to a build
dependency on ffmpeg. It used to be available on COPR but was deleted due to
this. It had >100 downloads when it was deleted, despite being a relatively
hidden project.
Rpmlint output - spec:
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.
Rpmlint output - binary:
pulseaudio-module-bluetooth-aptx.x86_64: W: no-documentation
pulseaudio-module-bluetooth-aptx.x86_64: W: empty-%post
>> Hm, it's not empty in the spec file
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings.
This is an interesting package. Built together with the same PA source and
config as the original Fedora package, but with the BT codec patches applied.
Then only the BT files are output into this package, ignoring the rest.
For safety, it provides and obsoletes the original Fedora version of this PA
module, so once it's upgraded, the new version will overwrite this, unless I
also push an updated version here to the updates repo e.g. during the testing
period of the new Fedora package.
Also because it provides the same version, it won't automatically overwrite the
original package, only if the user explicitly installs it.
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.
5 years, 7 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.
5 years, 8 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.
5 years, 8 months
[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.
5 years, 8 months
Introduction + looking for a sponsor
by Gergely Gombos
Hi RPMFusion devs,
My name is Gergely Gombos. I've been using Fedora for about 1.5 years
and I'm a software developer. I like the FOSS philosophy and using a lot
of open-source software in the Javascript world, I'd like to make my
contribution, too.
I'm looking for a sponsor, and my first RPM package is
"pulseaudio-module-bluetooth-aptx" and its dependency "libldac".
The original project <https://github.com/EHfive/pulseaudio-modules-bt> -
yet to be merged into upstream Pulseaudio - provides awesome audio
quality for Bluetooth headsets via aptX, AAC and LDAC codecs. This is
something that is hard to set up even on Windows! And this package works
seamlessly on Linux.
Originally this was in a COPR repo, with >100 downloads, but it got
deleted due to legal reasons (ffmpeg build dependency). So I hope it
will find a new home here since Fedora users are waiting for it.
I've spent quite a lot of time figuring out how RPM packaging works and
get this working and (hopefully) conforming to the guidelines - I
appreciate your review and help.
The packages:
pulseaudio-module-bluetooth-aptx - #5155
<https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=5155>
libldac - #5154 <https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=5154>
Thanks!
Best regards,
Greg
5 years, 9 months
Switch to VirtualBox 6 in F29
by Vascom
Hi all.
I suggest to update VirtualBox package to version 6 for F29.
It works fairly stable with all virtual machines (tested by me and
some other people in F29).
If someone request version 5 in parallel we can add VirtualBox5
package in the future.
--
Best regards,
Vasiliy Glazov
5 years, 9 months
Re: Switch to VirtualBox 6 in F29
by Miro Hrončok
-------- Forwarded Message --------
Subject: Re: Switch to VirtualBox 6 in F29
Date: Wed, 30 Jan 2019 06:43:33 -0500 (EST)
From: Pavel Valena <pvalena(a)redhat.com>
To: Miro Hrončok <mhroncok(a)redhat.com>
CC: rpmfusion-developers(a)lists.rpmfusion.org, Vít Ondruch <vondruch(a)redhat.com>
----- Original Message -----
> From: "Miro Hrončok" <mhroncok(a)redhat.com>
> To: rpmfusion-developers(a)lists.rpmfusion.org
> Cc: "Vít Ondruch" <vondruch(a)redhat.com>, "Pavel Valena" <pvalena(a)redhat.com>
> Sent: Wednesday, January 30, 2019 11:55:00 AM
> Subject: Re: Switch to VirtualBox 6 in F29
>
> On 29. 01. 19 7:24, Vascom wrote:
> > Hi all.
> >
> > I suggest to update VirtualBox package to version 6 for F29.
> > It works fairly stable with all virtual machines (tested by me and
> > some other people in F29).
>
> Does this break Vagrant?
IMHO I'd expect some advanced usage breakages(networks f.e.; snapshots), when
VirtualBox 6.0 is used. Although I have not thested that myself, neither checked
for changes in Vagrant with this regard.
In case you're interested:
https://github.com/hashicorp/vagrant/pull/10379
5 years, 9 months
Re: [kodi] Kodi 18.0 final
by Michael Cronenworth
On 1/29/19 2:54 AM, Leigh Scott wrote:
> commit 2241df2e88107357e79d23640e781fa6e6b2978b
> Author: Leigh Scott <leigh123linux(a)googlemail.com>
> Date: Tue Jan 29 08:53:57 2019 +0000
>
> Kodi 18.0 final
>
It may be nice to push an update within hours of them tagging the release, but have
you tested the build?
Please refrain from pushing any further updates until it can be tested.
Thank you,
Michael
5 years, 9 months
