May 2019 - rpmfusion-developers

[Bug 3900] New: Review Request: tivolibre - Java app and library for decoding TiVo files to standard MPEG files

by RPM Fusion Bugzilla

https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=3900 Bug #: 3900 Summary: Review Request: tivolibre - Java app and library for decoding TiVo files to standard MPEG 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: orion(a)cora.nwra.com CC: rpmfusion-package-review(a)rpmfusion.org Java app and library for decoding TiVo files to standard MPEG files. Spec file: http://www.cora.nwra.com/~orion/rpmfusion/tivolibre.spec SRPM file: http://www.cora.nwra.com/~orion/rpmfusion/tivolibre-0.7.2-1.fc23.src.rpm This contains an implementation of the Qualcomm Touring family of encryption algorithms and has the following restriction: # 5. The Turing family of encryption algorithms are covered by patents in # the United States of America and other countries. A free and # irrevocable license is hereby granted for the use of such patents to # the extent required to utilize the Turing family of encryption # algorithms for any purpose, subject to the condition that any # commercial product utilising any of the Turing family of encryption # algorithms should show the words "Encryption by QUALCOMM" either on the # product or in the associated documentation. and hence should be considered nonfree. -- 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

1
9
0 / 0

[Bug 4105] New: Review request: sdcc-nonfree - Small Device C Compiler - nonfree files

by RPM Fusion Bugzilla

https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=4105 Bug #: 4105 Summary: Review request: sdcc-nonfree - Small Device C Compiler - nonfree 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: rrankin(a)ihug.com.au CC: rpmfusion-package-review(a)rpmfusion.org Blocks: 2 Spec URL: https://github.com/rrankin/sdcc-nonfree/blob/master/sdcc-nonfree.spec Source URL: https://github.com/rrankin/sdcc-nonfree/blob/master/sdcc-nonfree-3.6.0-1.... Description: Files derived from Microchip files which are licensed for use for Microchip devices only. Files used for compiling code for 14 and 16 bit PIC processors. The sdcc --use-non-free flag must be used to access these files during compilation and linking. License: Restricting use for Microchip devices only makes license on the files in this package non-free from a Fedora perspective. Rpmlint: rpmlint sdcc-nonfree.spec sdcc-nonfree.spec:51: W: configure-without-libdir-spec 0 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings. note: %configure is not used as files end up in wrong directory $ rpmlint sdcc-nonfree-3.6.0-1.fc24.x86_64.rpm sdcc-nonfree.x86_64: W: invalid-license Redistributable but use for Microchip devices only sdcc-nonfree.x86_64: E: arch-dependent-file-in-usr-share /usr/share/sdcc/non-free/lib/pic16/libdev18f66j60.lib sdcc-nonfree.x86_64: W: binaryinfo-readelf-failed /usr/share/sdcc/non-free/lib/pic16/libdev18f66j60.lib readelf: Error: /tmp/rpmlint.sdcc-nonfree-3.6.0-1.fc24.x86_64.rpm.fjysaswk/usr/share/sdcc/non-free/lib/pic16/libdev18f66j60.lib: did not find a valid archive header ... Repeated for each .lib file in package sdcc-nonfree.x86_64: W: no-documentation sdcc-nonfree.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/share/sdcc/non-free/include/pic14/pic16lf1829.h ... Repeats for each .h file in package sdcc-nonfree.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/share/sdcc/non-free/include/pic16/pic18lf4580.h 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 724 errors, 1452 warnings. Notes: 1 W: invalid-license - Licence not suitable for Fedora 2 E: arch-dependent-file-in-usr-share - The .lib files are not lib files to be run on the host machine but rather to be included in the generated PIC code. The .libs files may be arch dependant only do to the endian of the host machine. /usr/share is where sdcc expects to find them. 3 W: binaryinfo-readelf-failed - The .lib files are not elf files. 4 W: no-documentation - All documentation is in sdcc package 5 W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package - The .h files are required for sdcc operation on PIC code and thus should not be in a -devel package $ rpmlint sdcc-nonfree-devel-3.6.0-1.fc24.noarch.rpm sdcc-nonfree-devel.noarch: W: invalid-license Redistributable but use for Microchip devices only sdcc-nonfree-devel.noarch: W: no-documentation 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings. Notes: 1 Invalid license is keeping these files out of Fedora 2 Contains source files which are own documentation This is my first rpmfusion package I am a sponsored Fedora packager. -- 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

1
3
0 / 0

[Bug 4700] New: Review request: bitwig-studio - A dynamic software for creation and performance of musical ideas

by RPM Fusion Bugzilla

https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=4700 Bug ID: 4700 Summary: Review request: bitwig-studio - A dynamic software for creation and performance of musical ideas 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: cybolic(a)gmail.com CC: rpmfusion-package-review(a)rpmfusion.org Blocks: 2 namespace: nonfree # Spec https://github.com/Cybolic/rpmspec-bitwig-studio/blob/master/bitwig-studi... # Description Bitwig Studio is a dynamic software for creation and performance of your musical ideas on stage or in the studio. This is proprietary piece of software, requiring a purchased license to function outside of demo mode. # rpmlint on source package > bitwig-studio.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US workflow -> work flow, work-flow, workforce "workflow" is how the text is written on bitwig.com. > bitwig-studio.src: W: invalid-license EULA From the RPM documentation, this would seem to be the valid option. > bitwig-studio.src: W: no-%build-section There's nothing to build, it's a repackaging. # rpmlint on binary package There is a lot of output from rpmlint on the binary, most of which is I don't see a solution for since this is proprietary software. This is my first RPM Fusion package. I'm coming from Arch and was saddened to see that there was no easy way to install Bitwig on RPM systems. I seem to be sponsored by basset on Fedora, but I'm new to this, so I might be wrong. 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.

4 years

1
7
0 / 0

[Bug 4757] New: Review Request: mupen64plus - Nintendo 64 Emulator

by RPM Fusion Bugzilla

https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=4757 Bug ID: 4757 Summary: Review Request: mupen64plus - Nintendo 64 Emulator 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: wberrier(a)gmail.com CC: rpmfusion-package-review(a)rpmfusion.org namespace: free There have been some previous review requests: https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=303 https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=908 It was also suggested to try to get this package into fedora since they allow emulators now. Baby steps... Here's a link to the src rpm: http://berrier.org/tmp/mupen64plus-2.5-2.fc27.src.rpm I got the src.rpm from: https://versaweb.dl.sourceforge.net/project/postinstaller/fedora/releases... but made a few changes, which are listed in the spec file. -- 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 4779] New: Review request: gjots2 - gjots2 is a fairly simple jotter (outline processor) application for your desktop.

by RPM Fusion Bugzilla

https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=4779 Bug ID: 4779 Summary: Review request: gjots2 - gjots2 is a fairly simple jotter (outline processor) application for your desktop. Product: Package Reviews Version: Current Hardware: x86_64 URL: https://sourceforge.net/projects/gjots2/ OS: GNU/Linux Status: NEW Severity: enhancement Priority: P1 Component: Review Request Assignee: rpmfusion-package-review(a)rpmfusion.org Reporter: bob.hepple(a)gmail.com CC: rpmfusion-package-review(a)rpmfusion.org Blocks: 2, 30 namespace: free Source rpm: https://sourceforge.net/projects/gjots2/files/gjots2/3.0.2/gjots2-3.0.2-1... Spec file: https://sourceforge.net/projects/gjots2/files/gjots2/3.0.2/gjots2.spec/do... Description: gjots2 ("gee-jots" or, if you prefer, "gyachts"!) is a way to marshall and organise your text notes in a convenient, hierarchical way. For example, use it for all your notes on Unix, personal bits and pieces, recipes and even PINs and passwords (encrypted with ccrypt(1), gpg(1) or openssl(1)). You can also use it to "mind-map" your compositions - write down all your thoughts and then start to organise them into a tree. By manipulating the tree you can easily reorder your thoughts and structure them appropriately. Why this package is not eligible to be included in Fedora? Version 2 is is fedora for several years but I have been unable to get them to upgrade to version 3 (numerous emails and bug reports). Version 2 is only applicable to Centos-6 while Centos-7 requires version 3. rpmlint messages are trivial (below) THis is my first rpmfusion package I am seeking a sponsor. 0 11:33 rpmbuild/ $ rpmlint RPMS/noarch/gjots2-3.0.2-1.201801081627.noarch.rpm gjots2.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) Organise -> Organist, Organism, Organize gjots2.noarch: W: summary-ended-with-dot C A note jotter. Organise your ideas, notes, facts in a hierarchy. gjots2.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US gyachts -> yachts, g yachts gjots2.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US marshall -> Marshall, marshal, marshals gjots2.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US organise -> organist, organism, organize gjots2.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US ccrypt -> crypt, c crypt gjots2.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US gpg -> pg, gig, gag gjots2.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US openssl -> slope gjots2.noarch: E: no-changelogname-tag gjots2.noarch: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/bin/docbook2gjots gjots2.noarch: E: wrong-script-interpreter /usr/bin/gjots2 /usr/bin/env python gjots2.noarch: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/bin/gjots2docbook gjots2.noarch: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/bin/gjots2emacs gjots2.noarch: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/bin/gjots2html gjots2.noarch: E: wrong-script-interpreter /usr/bin/gjots2html.py /usr/bin/env python gjots2.noarch: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/bin/gjots2lpr gjots2.noarch: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/bin/gjots2org gjots2.noarch: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/bin/org2gjots gjots2.noarch: E: script-without-shebang /usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/gjots2/__init__.py gjots2.noarch: E: script-without-shebang /usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/gjots2/common.py gjots2.noarch: E: script-without-shebang /usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/gjots2/file.py gjots2.noarch: E: script-without-shebang /usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/gjots2/find.py gjots2.noarch: E: script-without-shebang /usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/gjots2/general.py gjots2.noarch: E: script-without-shebang /usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/gjots2/gui.py gjots2.noarch: E: script-without-shebang /usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/gjots2/prefs.py gjots2.noarch: E: script-without-shebang /usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/gjots2/printDialog.py gjots2.noarch: E: script-without-shebang /usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/gjots2/sortDialog.py gjots2.noarch: E: script-without-shebang /usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/gjots2/version.py gjots2.noarch: E: standard-dir-owned-by-package /usr/share/doc gjots2.noarch: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/share/doc/gjots2/COPYING gjots2.noarch: E: standard-dir-owned-by-package /usr/share/man gjots2.noarch: E: standard-dir-owned-by-package /usr/share/man/man1 gjots2.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary gjots2emacs gjots2.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary gjots2html.py gjots2.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary gjots2lpr gjots2.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary gjots2org gjots2.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary org2gjots gjots2.noarch: W: install-file-in-docs /usr/share/doc/gjots2/INSTALL gjots2.noarch: W: file-not-in-%lang /usr/share/locale/cs/LC_MESSAGES/gjots2.mo gjots2.noarch: W: file-not-in-%lang /usr/share/locale/de_DE/LC_MESSAGES/gjots2.mo gjots2.noarch: W: file-not-in-%lang /usr/share/locale/en_US/LC_MESSAGES/gjots2.mo gjots2.noarch: W: file-not-in-%lang /usr/share/locale/es/LC_MESSAGES/gjots2.mo gjots2.noarch: W: file-not-in-%lang /usr/share/locale/fr/LC_MESSAGES/gjots2.mo gjots2.noarch: W: file-not-in-%lang /usr/share/locale/it/LC_MESSAGES/gjots2.mo gjots2.noarch: W: file-not-in-%lang /usr/share/locale/nb/LC_MESSAGES/gjots2.mo gjots2.noarch: W: file-not-in-%lang /usr/share/locale/no/LC_MESSAGES/gjots2.mo gjots2.noarch: W: file-not-in-%lang /usr/share/locale/ru/LC_MESSAGES/gjots2.mo gjots2.noarch: W: file-not-in-%lang /usr/share/locale/sl/LC_MESSAGES/gjots2.mo gjots2.noarch: W: file-not-in-%lang /usr/share/locale/sv/LC_MESSAGES/gjots2.mo gjots2.noarch: E: invalid-appdata-file /usr/share/appdata/gjots2.appdata.xml 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 25 errors, 25 warnings. 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

1
3
0 / 0

[Bug 4958] New: Review request: sch_cake-kmod - Kernel module (kmod) for sch_cake

by RPM Fusion Bugzilla

https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=4958 Bug ID: 4958 Summary: Review request: sch_cake-kmod - Kernel module (kmod) for sch_cake 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: dagofthedofg(a)gmail.com CC: rpmfusion-package-review(a)rpmfusion.org namespace: free URLs: https://github.com/survient/sch_cake/raw/master/sch_cake-kmod.spec https://github.com/survient/sch_cake/raw/master/sch_cake.spec https://github.com/survient/sch_cake/raw/master/sch_cake-kmod-0-1.fc28.sr... https://github.com/survient/sch_cake/raw/master/sch_cake-0-1.fc28.src.rpm Description: Kernel Module containing Cake queueing discipline(qdisc). https://www.bufferbloat.net/projects/codel/wiki/CakeTechnical/ Justification: Kernel modules are not allowed in the stock Fedora Repositories rpmlint: $ rpmlint rpmbuild/SRPMS/sch_cake-kmod-0-1.fc28.src.rpm sch_cake-kmod.src:6: W: mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs (spaces: line 6, tab: line 6) 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings. # Not sure what warning is, checked for spaces and didn't see any where specified in spec file $ rpmlint rpmbuild/SRPMS/sch_cake-0-1.fc28.src.rpm sch_cake.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) kmod -> mod, k mod, mood sch_cake.src: W: name-repeated-in-summary C sch_cake sch_cake.src:1: W: mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs (spaces: line 1, tab: line 1) 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 3 warnings. # Summary follows convention of other rpmfusion kmods including crystalhd # Again not sure what spacing warning is, spec file looks clean $ rpmlint rpmbuild/RPMS/x86_64/akmod-sch_cake-0-1.fc28.x86_64.rpm akmod-sch_cake.x86_64: W: no-documentation 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings. # No documentation provided upstream, usage info contained in source files $ rpmlint rpmbuild/RPMS/x86_64/kmod-sch_cake-0-1.fc28.x86_64.rpm kmod-sch_cake.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) Metapackage -> Meta package, Meta-package, Prepackage kmod-sch_cake.x86_64: W: no-documentation 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings. # kmodtool generates Summary, no way to tweak it without it being fixed upstream # No documentation provided upstream $ rpmlint rpmbuild/RPMS/x86_64/sch_cake-0-1.fc28.x86_64.rpm sch_cake.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) kmod -> mod, k mod, mood sch_cake.x86_64: W: name-repeated-in-summary C sch_cake sch_cake.x86_64: E: no-binary sch_cake.x86_64: W: no-documentation 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 3 warnings. # Summary follows convention of other rpmfusion kmods # userland package, no binaries included # No documentation provided upstream Notes: This is my first RPMFusion package submission I am seeking a sponsor -- 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
4
0 / 0

[Bug 5047] New: Review Request: dynamips - Cisco Router Emulator

by RPM Fusion Bugzilla

https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=5047 Bug ID: 5047 Summary: Review Request: dynamips - Cisco Router Emulator 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: nonfree SRPM: http://dl.kwizart.net/review/dynamips-0.2.18-1.fc28.src.rpm SPEC: http://dl.kwizart.net/review/dynamips.spec Summary: Cisco Router Emulator rpmlint is clean koji scratch build for f30 http://koji.rpmfusion.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=266431 This package is in the nonfree section because it has some pre-built binaries for mips/ppc32 firmware loading needed by the emulator. Also I've not distributed the COPYING file as no code in this package seems to use the GPL license header. (clarification pending upstream). -- 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
8
0 / 0

[Bug 4960] New: Review request: sch_cake - Kernel module (kmod) for sch_cake

by RPM Fusion Bugzilla

https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=4960 Bug ID: 4960 Summary: Review request: sch_cake - Kernel module (kmod) for sch_cake 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: dagofthedofg(a)gmail.com CC: rpmfusion-package-review(a)rpmfusion.org namespace: free URLs: https://github.com/survient/sch_cake/raw/master/sch_cake.spec https://github.com/survient/sch_cake/raw/master/sch_cake-0-1.fc28.src.rpm Description: sch_cake common files. https://www.bufferbloat.net/projects/codel/wiki/CakeTechnical/ Justification: Kernel modules are not allowed in the stock Fedora Repositories rpmlint: $ rpmlint rpmbuild/SRPMS/sch_cake-0-1.fc28.src.rpm sch_cake.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) kmod -> mod, k mod, mood sch_cake.src: W: name-repeated-in-summary C sch_cake sch_cake.src:1: W: mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs (spaces: line 1, tab: line 1) 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 3 warnings. # Summary follows convention of other rpmfusion kmods including crystalhd # Not sure what spacing warning is, spec file looks clean $ rpmlint rpmbuild/RPMS/x86_64/sch_cake-0-1.fc28.x86_64.rpm sch_cake.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) kmod -> mod, k mod, mood sch_cake.x86_64: W: name-repeated-in-summary C sch_cake sch_cake.x86_64: E: no-binary sch_cake.x86_64: W: no-documentation 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 3 warnings. # Summary follows convention of other rpmfusion kmods # userland package, no binaries included # No documentation provided upstream Notes: This is my first RPMFusion package submission I am seeking a sponsor -- 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
4
0 / 0

[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.

4 years

1
43
0 / 0

[Bug 5082] New: Review request: dtv-scan-tables - Digital TV scan tables

by RPM Fusion Bugzilla

https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=5082 Bug ID: 5082 Summary: Review request: dtv-scan-tables - Digital TV scan tables 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: anto.trande(a)gmail.com CC: rpmfusion-package-review(a)rpmfusion.org namespace: free 'dtv-scan-table' is required by 'tvheaded' This package is provided on Fedora but cannot be branched on el7 for missing dependencies (v4l-utils >= 1.4.0). This must be built for RPMFusion-el7 only, 'v4l' tools are compiled inside the builddir of 'dtv-scan-tables' RPM and just executed (and not installed) to convert the files provided in the 'dtv-scan-tables' source archive. SPEC file: https://sagitter.fedorapeople.org/dtv-scan-tables/dtv-scan-tables.spec SRPM file: https://sagitter.fedorapeople.org/dtv-scan-tables/dtv-scan-tables-1-1.201... Scratch build: http://koji.rpmfusion.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=275441 -- 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
4
0 / 0

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

rpmfusion-developers May 2019