November 2020 - rpmfusion-developers

[Bug 5103] New: New Package: kodi-vfs-libarchive

by RPM Fusion Bugzilla

https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=5103 Bug ID: 5103 Summary: New Package: kodi-vfs-libarchive 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: klaasdemter+rpmfusion(a)gmail.com CC: rpmfusion-package-review(a)rpmfusion.org namespace: free Created attachment 1991 --> https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/attachment.cgi?id=1991&action=edit Working specfile Hi, the support to playback from archive files was removed from kodi and moved into a vfs module. I tried to integrate it myself but I'm not fully understanding everything in the spec file. https://github.com/xbmc/vfs.libarchive latest release that should work with the current version: https://github.com/xbmc/vfs.libarchive/archive/1.0.4-Leia.tar.gz I've attached my idea of the spec file. sources file: b7fe9ddfd1db41c2d586c711d2e21b09 1.0.4-Leia.tar.gz Greetings Klaas -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are the assignee for the bug.

2 years, 4 months

1
10
0 / 0

[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.

2 years, 4 months

1
28
0 / 0

[Bug 5522] New: Review request: mopidy-spotify - Mopidy extension for playing music from Spotify

by RPM Fusion Bugzilla

https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=5522 Bug ID: 5522 Summary: Review request: mopidy-spotify - Mopidy extension for playing music from Spotify 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 Blocks: 2 namespace: nonfree SRPM: https://github.com/fork-graveyard/libspotify-rpmfusion/releases/download/... SPEC: https://raw.githubusercontent.com/fork-graveyard/libspotify-rpmfusion/mop... Description: Mopidy extension for playing music from Spotify. (Mopidy itself is free software, and packaged for Fedora already) Why not eligible for Fedora: requires python-pyspotify from rpmfusion-nonfree % rpmlint result/*rpm 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. Question for the reviewer: This package has a dependency that is ExclusiveArch -- do I need to declare this one EA too? Thanks in advance. 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.

2 years, 4 months

1
6
0 / 0

[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.

2 years, 4 months

1
11
0 / 0

[Bug 5478] New: Review Request: retroarch - Cross-platform, sophisticated frontend for the libretro API

by RPM Fusion Bugzilla

https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=5478 Bug ID: 5478 Summary: Review Request: retroarch - Cross-platform, sophisticated frontend for the libretro API 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: ego.cordatus(a)gmail.com CC: rpmfusion-package-review(a)rpmfusion.org Blocks: 2, 30 namespace: nonfree https://copr-be.cloud.fedoraproject.org/results/atim/retroarch/fedora-31-... https://copr-be.cloud.fedoraproject.org/results/atim/retroarch/fedora-31-... Description: libretro is an API that exposes generic audio/video/input callbacks. A frontend for libretro (such as RetroArch) handles video output, audio output, input and application lifecycle. A libretro core written in portable C or C++ can run seamlessly on many platforms with very little to no porting effort. While RetroArch is the reference frontend for libretro, several other projects have used the libretro interface to include support for emulators and/or game engines. libretro is completely open and free for anyone to use. Fedora Account System Username: atim Working COPR: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/atim/retroarch Why this package is not eligible to be included in Fedora? Requires ffmpeg and NVIDIA Cg Toolkit for non-free version. --- We trying to package two versions - free and non-free. Non-free version requires free version from main Fedora repo. Also would be nice to package non-free libretro cores in RPM Fusion in future. RHBZ: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1778299 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.

2 years, 4 months

1
34
0 / 0

[Bug 5216] New: Review request: libftl - FTL audio/video streaming library

by RPM Fusion Bugzilla

https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=5216 Bug ID: 5216 Summary: Review request: libftl - FTL audio/video streaming library 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: fedorauser(a)fedoraproject.org CC: rpmfusion-package-review(a)rpmfusion.org namespace: free FTL-SDK is a cross platform SDK written in C to enable sending audio/video to mixer using FTL service. This package is not in Fedora as it relies on codecs. Also, it is very specific to OBS Studio which is only in RPM Fusion. Installation RPM: https://fedorauser.fedorapeople.org/Packages/libftl/0.9.14/libftl-0.9.14-... .src.rpm and .spec files: https://fedorauser.fedorapeople.org/Packages/libftl/0.9.14/libftl-0.9.14-... https://fedorauser.fedorapeople.org/Packages/libftl/0.9.14/libftl.spec This is not my first package, I already maintain OBS Studio. Package is actually result of a bug report[1]. rpmlint outputs: $ rpmlint SRPMS/libftl-0.9.14-1.fc29.src.rpm libftl.src:44: E: hardcoded-library-path in %{_prefix}/lib/%{name}.so* 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 0 warnings. $ rpmlint RPMS/x86_64/libftl-0.9.14-1.fc29.x86_64.rpm 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. $ rpmlint RPMS/x86_64/libftl-devel-0.9.14-1.fc29.x86_64.rpm libftl-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings. $ rpmlint RPMS/x86_64/libftl-debuginfo-0.9.14-1.fc29.x86_64.rpm 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. Choose to ignore hardcoded library as it is actually part where it is moved to proper location, as opposed to where install scripts puts it. [1] https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=5057 Kind regards, Momcilo "Momo" Medic. (fedorauser) -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are the assignee for the bug.

2 years, 4 months

1
12
0 / 0

[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.

2 years, 4 months

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.

2 years, 4 months

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.

2 years, 4 months

1
15
0 / 0

[Bug 5639] New: Review Request: gstreamer - GStreamer streaming media framework runtime

by RPM Fusion Bugzilla

https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=5639 Bug ID: 5639 Summary: Review Request: gstreamer - GStreamer streaming media framework runtime 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: dominik(a)greysector.net CC: rpmfusion-package-review(a)rpmfusion.org namespace: free Spec URL: https://www.greysector.net/~rathann/review/gstreamer/gstreamer.spec SRPM URL: https://www.greysector.net/~rathann/review/gstreamer/gstreamer-0.10.36-27... Description: GStreamer is a streaming media framework, based on graphs of filters which operate on media data. Applications using this library can do anything from real-time sound processing to playing videos, and just about anything else media-related. Its plugin-based architecture means that new data types or processing capabilities can be added simply by installing new plugins. FAS login: rathann Why not in Fedora? Legacy unmaintained branch still required by a handful of proprietary applications. To be placed in separate RPM Fusion repository. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are the assignee for the bug.

2 years, 4 months

1
13
0 / 0

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

rpmfusion-developers November 2020