[Bug 6040] New: Review request: tivodecode-ng - Convert a .TiVo file
from TiVoToGo to a normal MPEG
by RPM Fusion Bugzilla
https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=6040
Bug ID: 6040
Summary: Review request: tivodecode-ng - Convert a .TiVo file
from TiVoToGo to a normal MPEG
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: cra(a)alum.wpi.edu
CC: rpmfusion-package-review(a)rpmfusion.org
namespace: free
SPEC: https://fedorapeople.org/~cra/tivodecode-ng/tivodecode-ng.spec
SRPM:
https://fedorapeople.org/~cra/tivodecode-ng/tivodecode-ng-0.5-1.fc35.src.rpm
Description:
tivodecode-ng ("ng" for "next generation") is a portable command-line
tool for decrypting .TiVo video files into program streams or
transport streams, depending on the source. It also will decrypt the
metadata (title, description, etc.). It's based on tivodecode by
Jeremy Drake, with enhancements by several contributors. tivodecode-ng
adds support for transport streams, although that's a work in
progress. (Note that support for program streams is as complete as
ever.)
Why Not Fedora? Patent encumbered.
rpmlint:
tivodecode-ng.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) TiVo -> Tito, Vito, Divot
tivodecode-ng.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US decrypting ->
decryption, encrypting
tivodecode-ng.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US TiVo -> Tito, Vito,
Divot
tivodecode-ng.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US decrypt -> decry pt,
decry-pt, decry
tivodecode-ng.src: W: invalid-license QUALCOMM
tivodecode-ng.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) TiVo -> Tito, Vito,
Divot
tivodecode-ng.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US decrypting ->
decryption, encrypting
tivodecode-ng.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US TiVo -> Tito,
Vito, Divot
tivodecode-ng.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US decrypt -> decry
pt, decry-pt, decry
tivodecode-ng.x86_64: W: invalid-license QUALCOMM
tivodecode-ng.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary tdcat
tivodecode-ng.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary tivodecode
tivodecode-ng-debuginfo.x86_64: W: invalid-license QUALCOMM
tivodecode-ng-debugsource.x86_64: W: invalid-license QUALCOMM
4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 14 warnings.
There are no manual pages provided upstream.
QUALCOMM license is not on the fedora licensing page:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing:Main?rd=Licensing#SoftwareLicenses,
although it appears to be a variation on a BSD license. The QUALCOMM license
is essentially the SSLeay license: http://www.sdisw.com/openssl.htm
See further discussions about the license and reasons for why this cannot be in
Fedora in the original package review:
https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=342
This is my first rpmfusion package, but I am a Fedora packager. My Fedora FAS
ID is cra and my wiki user page is https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Cra
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are the assignee for the bug.
2 years, 5 months
FFmpeg drops libavresample
by Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski
Hi!
libavresample library from FFmpeg was deprecated in FFmpeg 4.0 in
January 2017. It was removed in FFmpeg (4.5?) in April 2021. It looks
like my nagging to stop using it paid off and we're down to two
consumers from the original six:
https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=5347 .
So, here are the two remaining ones:
alsa-plugins-freeworld
tvheadend
Consider this the final warning. :)
Regards,
Dominik
--
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
2 years, 5 months
Fwd: [EPEL-devel] Re: and about missing binary packages ? Re:
proposed recommendation - missing devel packages
by Sérgio Basto
-------- Forwarded Message --------
From: Carl George <carl(a)redhat.com>
Reply-To: EPEL Development List <epel-devel(a)lists.fedoraproject.org>
To: EPEL Development List <epel-devel(a)lists.fedoraproject.org>
Subject: [EPEL-devel] Re: and about missing binary packages Re:
proposed recommendation - missing devel packages
Date: Fri, 2 Jul 2021 17:08:04 -0500
Yes, this would also apply to that scenario. You can create a
lame-epel package that has a lame subpackage, as long as none of the
files conflict with lame-devel and lame-libs from RHEL8. You would
also want to relax the requirement on lame-libs by removing the
%{release}, so that way you can bump the release on the epel package
and still have the requirement satisfied by the RHEL lame-libs.
-Requires: %{name}-libs = %{version}-%{release}
+Requires: %{name}-libs = %{version}
On Thu, Jul 1, 2021 at 5:31 PM Sérgio Basto <sergio(a)serjux.com> wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> Sorry, this may be a little Off-topic but we notice that lame package
> from RHEL 8 (1) is not shipping lame package with binaries and in
> this
> case lame-devel is provided along with lame-libs , can we apply the
> same rules ? is completely a different situation ?
>
>
> (1)
> https://git.centos.org/rpms/lame/blob/c8/f/SPECS/lame.spec
>
>
> On Thu, 2021-07-01 at 15:05 -0700, Troy Dawson wrote:
> > I believe this is a recommendation, versus a policy.
> > I wanted to get people's thoughts on it, and if ya'll like it, put
> > it
> > in the documentation.
> > ----
> > In Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) 8, Red Hat decided to not ship
> > all
> > packages that are built from RHEL spec files. This will also be
> > true
> > of RHEL 9, and possibly future RHEL releases. These missing
> > packages
> > are usually -devel packages and may impact an EPEL package build.
> > If your EPEL package is impacted by a missing -devel package, do
> > the
> > following.
> >
> > 1 - Request the package be added to RHEL 8 and 9 CRB repository.
> > -- To initiate this process, please file a bug in
> > https://bugzilla.redhat.com and request it be added to RHEL 8 and
> > 9.
> > Report the bug against the "CentOS Stream" version of the "Red Hat
> > Enterprise Linux 8" and/or "Red Hat Enterprise Linux 9" product.
> > -- Be sure to say that it is impacting an EPEL build, and which
> > package
> > it is impacting.
> >
> > 2 - Create an epel package that only has the missing packages.
> > -- Be prepared to maintain this package as long as it is needed.
> > -- It is recommended that you name it <package>-epel
> > -- It is recommended that you add the epel-packaging-sig group as a
> > co-
> > maintainer
> > -- It qualifies for an exception to the review process[1] so you
> > can
> > request the repo with
> > --- fedpkg request-repo --exception <package>-epel
> > -- If you need help building this, ask for help. We have some
> > examples.
> >
> > 3 - When/If the missing package(s) are added to RHEL CRB, retire
> > your -
> > epel package.
> >
> > ---
> > Sorry, this is a little rushed. I wanted to get something out
> > sooner,
> > rather than later.
> >
> > Troy
> >
> > [1] -
> > https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/ReviewGuideline...
> > - Third bullet point
>
> --
> Sérgio M. B.
> _______________________________________________
> epel-devel mailing list -- epel-devel(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
> To unsubscribe send an email to
> epel-devel-leave(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
> Fedora Code of Conduct:
> https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
> List Guidelines:
> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
> List Archives:
> https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/epel-devel@lists.fedoraproj...
> Do not reply to spam on the list, report it:
> https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
--
Carl George
_______________________________________________
epel-devel mailing list -- epel-devel(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to
epel-devel-leave(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct:
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives:
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/epel-devel@lists.fedoraproj...
Do not reply to spam on the list, report it:
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
--
Sérgio M. B.
2 years, 5 months
RPM Fusion update report 2021-07-01
by noreply＠rpmfusion.org
RPM Fusion update report
------------------------
Section free:
-------------
Fedora 33
-------------
Pushed to testing:
mixxx-2.3.0-1.fc33
mythtv-31.0-19.158.20210629git0680b37c68.fc33
obs-studio-27.0.1-2.fc33
vdr-markad-3.0.6-1.fc33
Pushed to stable:
kdenlive-21.04.2-2.fc33
mpd-0.22.9-1.fc33
plasma-wallpapers-dynamic-3.3.9-1.fc33
zoneminder-1.36.5-1.fc33
Fedora 34
-------------
Pushed to testing:
mixxx-2.3.0-1.fc34
mythtv-31.0-19.158.20210629git0680b37c68.fc34
obs-studio-27.0.1-2.fc34
vdr-markad-3.0.6-1.fc34
Pushed to stable:
alsa-plugins-freeworld-1.2.5-1.fc34
kdenlive-21.04.2-2.fc34
mpd-0.22.9-1.fc34
plasma-wallpapers-dynamic-3.3.9-1.fc34
zoneminder-1.36.5-1.fc34
EL 7
-------------
Pushed to testing:
Pushed to stable:
zoneminder-1.36.5-1.el7
EL 8
-------------
Pushed to testing:
mythtv-31.0-19.158.20210629git0680b37c68.el8
obs-studio-27.0.1-2.el8
Pushed to stable:
mpd-0.22.9-1.el8
zoneminder-1.36.5-1.el8
Section nonfree:
-------------
Fedora 33
-------------
Pushed to testing:
nvidia-340xx-kmod-340.108-13.fc33
nvidia-390xx-kmod-390.143-2.fc33
steam-1.0.0.70-4.fc33
Pushed to stable:
Fedora 34
-------------
Pushed to testing:
EmptyEpsilon-2021.06.23-1.fc34
nvidia-340xx-kmod-340.108-13.fc34
nvidia-390xx-kmod-390.143-2.fc34
steam-1.0.0.70-4.fc34
Pushed to stable:
EL 7
-------------
Pushed to testing:
Pushed to stable:
EL 8
-------------
Pushed to testing:
Pushed to stable:
Theses packages will be available in main mirror in a few hours. Wait for local mirrors to sync
Please report any issue to https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org
2 years, 5 months
