December 2019 - rpmfusion-developers

[Bug 5482] New: Review request: libspotify - Official Spotify API

by RPM Fusion Bugzilla

https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=5482 Bug ID: 5482 Summary: Review request: libspotify - Official Spotify API 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: t-rpmfusion(a)girst.at CC: rpmfusion-package-review(a)rpmfusion.org namespace: nonfree Description: "libspotify is the official Spotify API. Applications can use this API to play music using a user's Spotify account, provided that the user has a Spotify Premium Account." libspotify was retired after fc26, I would like to package it again (and plan to also package its users pyspotify and Mopidy{,-Spotify}, but one thing at a time). The package is not eligible for Fedora because it is nonfree. rpmlint output: ~ % rpmlint result/libspotify-12.1.51-6.fc30.x86_64.rpm libspotify.x86_64: W: shared-lib-calls-exit /usr/lib64/libspotify.so.12.1.51 _exit(a)GLIBC_2.2.5 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings. ~ % rpmlint result/libspotify-devel-12.1.51-6.fc30.x86_64.rpm 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. ~ % rpmlint result/libspotify-12.1.51-6.fc30.src.rpm 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. (I can't do anything about the shared-lib-calls-exit, since it is binary-only) This is my first contribution to rpmfusion (and to any Fedora repository in general, but I have made rpms before), so I am looking for someone to sponsor me here (greatly appreciated). The spec file and src.rpm are currently available at: - https://raw.githubusercontent.com/fork-graveyard/libspotify-rpmfusion/mas... - https://github.com/fork-graveyard/libspotify-rpmfusion/releases/download/... -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are the assignee for the bug.

4 years

1
31
0 / 0

[Bug 5268] New: Review request: dptfxtract - Utility to generate a thermald configuration from DPTF

by RPM Fusion Bugzilla

https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=5268 Bug ID: 5268 Summary: Review request: dptfxtract - Utility to generate a thermald configuration from DPTF 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: benjamin(a)sipsolutions.net CC: rpmfusion-package-review(a)rpmfusion.org namespace: nonfree spec file: https://benjamin.sipsolutions.net/dptfxtract.spec SRPM: https://benjamin.sipsolutions.net/dptfxtract-1.3-1.fc30.src.rpm RPM: https://benjamin.sipsolutions.net/dptfxtract-1.3-1.fc30.x86_64.rpm Upstream: https://github.com/intel/dptfxtract Description: This is a companion tool to Linux Thermal Daemon (thermald). This tool tries to reuse some of the tables used by "Intel ® Dynamic Platform and Thermal Framework (Intel® DPTF)" by converting to the thermal_conf.xml format used by thermald. Integration with thermald is included so that that a thermald configuration will be created automatically if thermald is enabled. This package is not eligible for Fedora as dptfxtract is a non-free executable. The executable is freely distributable. Note that I have chosen to enable the extraction by default when installed by adding an appropriate symlink for thermald.service.wants. RPM Lint: dptfxtract.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) thermald -> thermals, thermal, thermal d dptfxtract.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US thermald -> thermals, thermal, thermal d dptfxtract.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US conf -> con, cone, cons dptfxtract.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US xml -> XML, ml -> Wrong reports of spelling errors dptfxtract.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US conf -> con, cone, cons dptfxtract.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US xml -> XML, ml -> Wrong reports of spelling errors dptfxtract.x86_64: W: unstripped-binary-or-object /usr/libexec/dptfxtract -> Upstream binary should not be modified This is my first rpmfusion 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

1
29
0 / 0

[Bug 5163] New: Review request: olive - Professional open-source NLE video editor

by RPM Fusion Bugzilla

https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=5163 Bug ID: 5163 Summary: Review request: olive - Professional open-source NLE video editor 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/olive.spec SRPM URL: https://martinkg.fedorapeople.org/Review/SRPMS/olive-0-0.1.20190206gitfc9... Description:Olive is a free non-linear video editor for Windows, macOS, and Linux. Fedora Account System Username: martinkg this package belongs to rpmfusion, due ffmpeg dependencies. $ rpmlint -i -v olive.spec /home/martin/rpmbuild/SRPMS/olive-0-0.1.20190206gitfc96ad7.fc29.src.rpm /home/martin/rpmbuild/RPMS/x86_64/olive-0- 0.1.20190206gitfc96ad7.fc29.x86_64.rpm /home/martin/rpmbuild/RPMS/x86_64/olive-debugsource-0-0.1.20190206gitfc96ad7.fc29.x86_64.rpm /home/martin/rpmbuild/RPMS/x86_64/olive-debuginfo-0-0.1.20190206gitfc96ad7.fc29.x86_64.rpm olive.spec: I: checking olive.spec: I: checking-url https://github.com/olive-editor/olive/archive/fc96ad7735c1120a9d5f4692e12... (timeout 10 seconds) olive.src: I: checking olive.src: I: checking-url https://www.olivevideoeditor.org (timeout 10 seconds) olive.src: I: checking-url https://github.com/olive-editor/olive/archive/fc96ad7735c1120a9d5f4692e12... (timeout 10 seconds) olive.x86_64: I: checking olive.x86_64: I: checking-url https://www.olivevideoeditor.org (timeout 10 seconds) olive.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary olive-editor Each executable in standard binary directories should have a man page. olive-debugsource.x86_64: I: checking olive-debugsource.x86_64: I: checking-url https://www.olivevideoeditor.org (timeout 10 seconds) olive-debuginfo.x86_64: I: checking olive-debuginfo.x86_64: I: checking-url https://www.olivevideoeditor.org (timeout 10 seconds) 4 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings. %changelog * Wed Feb 06 2019 Martin Gansser <martinkg(a)fedoraproject.org> - 0-0.1.20190206gitfc96ad7 - initial package, not even released as version 0.1... -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are the assignee for the bug.

4 years

1
15
0 / 0

[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

1
29
0 / 0

Re: [x264/f30: 7/7] Merge branch 'f29' into f30

by Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski

On Friday, 04 October 2019 at 10:23, Nicolas Chauvet wrote: > Please consider to use cherry-pick next time. > I don't see the point to compute a merge resolution for the changelog > because of a single fix. > This is craziness. Cherry-picking only makes sense when the branches are too diverged. I did cherry-pick from f29 to el7 for that reason. The others are more or less the same. All the fixes that went into all branches should have been applied to the oldest applicable branch first and then merged upwards. This wasn't done, hence the current merge commits look uglier than they could be. They will be much cleaner in the future if this workflow is followed. Christopher over at fedora devel list has some valid points in favour of this way[1]: Git has excellent branch merging features. Merging branches, rather than cherry-picking across them, results in commits representing the same changeset being present in multiple branches, making it easier to search git history and identify which branches contain a specific change. Regards, Dominik [1] https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.o... -- Fedora https://getfedora.org | RPM Fusion http://rpmfusion.org There should be a science of discontent. People need hard times and oppression to develop psychic muscles. -- from "Collected Sayings of Muad'Dib" by the Princess Irulan

4 years, 5 months

5
11
0 / 0

[Bug 5450] New: Review request: scrcpy- Display and control your Android device

by RPM Fusion Bugzilla

https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=5450 Bug ID: 5450 Summary: Review request: scrcpy- Display and control your Android device 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: faezebax(a)riseup.net CC: rpmfusion-package-review(a)rpmfusion.org Blocks: 2, 30 namespace: free spec file: https://raw.githubusercontent.com/faezebax/rpms/master/scrcpy.spec source rpm: https://github.com/faezebax/rpms/raw/master/scrcpy-1.10-1.fc31.src.rpm This application provides display and control of Android devices connected on USB (or over TCP/IP). It does not require any root access. This application uses ffmpeg which is not in official fedora repos since so it cannot be placed in fedora repos. Also it has a sever part that should be build by gradle which needs Android SDK. It is placed as a scrcpy-server.jar in the package. I talked with upstream and asked them to find a way to build it without needing to Android SDK. Output of "rpmlint scrcpy-1.10-1.fc31.src.rpm": 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. Output of "rpmlint scrcpy-1.10-1.fc31.x86_64.rpm": 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. Output of"rpmlint scrcpy.spec" 0 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. This is my first RPM Fusion package. I want to contribute more to fedora and I am seeking a sponsor. I appreciate any advice that make my package better and increase my knowledge. 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, 6 months

1
7
0 / 0

[Bug 5495] New: Review request: SDLPoP - An open-source port of Prince of Persia

by RPM Fusion Bugzilla

https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=5495 Bug ID: 5495 Summary: Review request: SDLPoP - An open-source port of Prince of Persia 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: musuruan(a)gmail.com CC: rpmfusion-package-review(a)rpmfusion.org namespace: nonfree Spec URL: http://musuruan.epizy.com/reviews/SDLPoP.spec SRPM URL: http://musuruan.epizy.com/reviews/SDLPoP-1.20-1.fc31.src.rpm Description: SDLPoP is an open-source port of Prince of Persia, based on the disassembly of the DOS version. Why this package is not eligible to be included in Fedora? It is a reverse engineered version of PoP including original graphics. rpmlint output: $ rpmlint SDLPoP-1.20-1.fc31.src.rpm SDLPoP.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US disassembly -> disassemble, dis assembly, dis-assembly 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings. $ rpmlint SDLPoP-debugsource-1.20-1.fc31.x86_64.rpm 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. $ rpmlint SDLPoP-1.20-1.fc31.x86_64.rpm SDLPoP.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US disassembly -> disassemble, dis assembly, dis-assembly SDLPoP.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary prince 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings. $ rpmlint SDLPoP-debuginfo-1.20-1.fc31.x86_64.rpm 1 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.

4 years, 6 months

1
14
0 / 0

About multilibs support in RPM Fusion

by Nicolas Chauvet

Hi there, For the info, I've restored the capability to build for multilibs on fedora 31+ (as we don't build i686 by default). There is a rfpkg update that is been prepared by sergio to automate the appropriate packages to be forwarded to the related koji build target. The current packages that will build on multilibs are currently limited to steam, libva-intel-driver and nvidia driver. If other components are missing, please let me know. For the long run, it's more complicated as i386 repos doesn't seem to be published (el8) or are going to be less reliable (fedora 31+). So instead, I envision to build using the x86_64 repos (using a x86_64 compiler and tools and i686 libraries). For information, RHEL8 is obviously building i686 with -m32 -march=x86_64 by default, so I assume the i686 packages are already built using a x86_64 userspace there. I've reported this issue to mock to investigate how this can be achieved: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/mock/issues/340 Thx -- - Nicolas (kwizart)

4 years, 8 months

4
6
0 / 0

[Bug 5367] New: Review request: fedy - Install codecs and additional software

by RPM Fusion Bugzilla

https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=5367 Bug ID: 5367 Summary: Review request: fedy - Install codecs and additional software 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: kwizart(a)gmail.com CC: rpmfusion-package-review(a)rpmfusion.org Group: Package Reviews namespace: free SRPM: http://dl.kwizart.net/review/fedy-5.0.0-1.fc29.src.rpm SPEC: http://dl.kwizart.net/review/fedy.spec Summary: Install codecs and additional software Koji scratch build: http://koji.rpmfusion.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=350702 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are the assignee for the bug.

4 years, 10 months

1
14
0 / 0

[Bug 5499] New: Review request: ripcord - a lightweight chat client for Slack and Discord

by RPM Fusion Bugzilla

https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=5499 Bug ID: 5499 Summary: Review request: ripcord - a lightweight chat client for Slack and Discord 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: sentrycraft123(a)gmail.com CC: rpmfusion-package-review(a)rpmfusion.org Blocks: 2, 30 namespace: nonfree https://github.com/Jan200101/Ripcord-rpm/releases/download/v1.0/ripcord.spec https://github.com/Jan200101/Ripcord-rpm/releases/download/v1.0/ripcord-0... Description: Ripcord is a free proprietary client for Slack and Discord Why not in fedora: Ripcord is nonfree rpmlint: >ripcord.x86_64: E: devel-dependency libsodium-devel >ripcord.x86_64: E: explicit-lib-dependency libsodium-devel >ripcord.x86_64: W: invalid-license Proprietary >ripcord.x86_64: W: unstripped-binary-or-object /usr/lib64/ripcord/Ripcord >ripcord.x86_64: W: no-documentation >ripcord.x86_64: W: dangling-symlink /usr/lib64/ripcord/lib/libsodium.so.18 /usr/lib64/libsodium.so >ripcord.x86_64: W: dangling-symlink /usr/lib64/ripcord/plugins /usr/lib64/qt5/plugins >ripcord.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary Ripcord >ripcord.x86_64: W: desktopfile-without-binary /usr/share/applications/Ripcord.desktop /usr/bin/Ripcord >ripcord.src: W: invalid-license Proprietary >ripcord.src: W: strange-permission Ripcord-0.4.21-x86_64.AppImage 775 >2 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 2 errors, 9 warnings. Ripcord requires libsodium.so.18 which is not in any repo so I just symlink libsodium.so do lobsodium.so.18 in the Ripcords lib directory only libsodium-devel has libsodium.so so I set that as a dependency, if someone has a better future proof solution I'm free to change it Ripcord requires a plugins directory next to its binary so I symlink it This is my first RPM Fusion package and I am still looking for a sponsor 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, 10 months

1
26
0 / 0

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

rpmfusion-developers December 2019