[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.
4 years, 10 months
[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
[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
[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, 1 month
pulseaudio-module-bluetooth-nonfree - review swap?
by Gombos Gergely
Hi,
I have submitted this package
<https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=5155> for review into
RPMFusion.
It may not be the easiest one to review since most of the specfile is from
the Fedora Pulseaudio specfile, but it enables aptX, LDAC and AAC codecs
for Bluetooth headsets, any many people are happily using it already.
So there may be still some modifications needed but I'm willing to do them.
I'm OK to swap reviews (in Fedora repo, too) and would appreciate if
somebody could take it. :)
Best regards,
Greg
5 years, 1 month
[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, 1 month
RPM Fusion mass-rebuild and branching f30
by Nicolas Chauvet
Hi there,
FYI, one need to head the mass-rebuild before we can branch f30.
On the fedora side, the branching is done. I agree that it would have
been better to branch at the same time, but we still have to
mass-rebuild before.
It could eventually start as soon as everything is in good shape:
- I may enable few more aarch64 builders. (aarch64-02 is currently
disabled because broken for unknown reason)
- The fedora development/30 repos are broken for the fedora-secondary
(i386/ppc64le).
There is no repodata yet for theses repo.
I've made our master branch to point to development/30 as
development/rawhide is one week late anyway on the fedora side...
If anyone has an urgent fix for f30, I will restore the
development/rawhide branch, but you might consider the master branch
broken until fixed on the fedora side.
Thx
--
-
Nicolas (kwizart)
5 years, 1 month
mythtv v30 mythgame issue
by Richard Shaw
I added the BR's for minizip which seem to be a new dependency but
configure is still not picking it up. I can't mock build from rawhide (as
of yesterday) so instead of abusing the builders I'll try f29 to
troubleshoot this issue.
Thanks,
Richard
5 years, 1 month
