[Bug 6404] New: Review request: atomes - An atomistic toolbox
by RPM Fusion Bugzilla
https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=6404
Bug ID: 6404
Summary: Review request: atomes - An atomistic toolbox
Product: Package Reviews
Version: Current
Hardware: x86_64
OS: GNU/Linux
Status: NEW
Severity: normal
Priority: P1
Component: Review Request
Assignee: rpmfusion-package-review(a)rpmfusion.org
Reporter: sebastien.leroux(a)ipcms.unistra.fr
CC: rpmfusion-package-review(a)rpmfusion.org
Blocks: 2, 30
namespace: free
First of all thanks in advance for the person who will consider this review ;-)
URL of spec file:
https://github.com/Slookeur/Atomes-rpm-build/blob/main/atomes.spec
URL of source RPM:
https://github.com/Slookeur/Atomes-rpm-build/blob/main/atomes-1.1.0-1.src...
Description:
Atomes: a toolbox to analyze, to visualize and to edit/create three-dimensional
atomistic models.
It offers a workspace that allows to have many projects opened simultaneously.
The different projects in the workspace can exchange data: analysis results,
atomic coordinates ...
Atomes also provides an advanced input preparation system for further
calculations using well known molecular dynamics codes:
Classical MD : DLPOLY and LAMMPS
ab-initio MD : CPMD and CP2K
QM-MM MD : CPMD and CP2K
To prepare the input filles for these calculations is likely to be the key, and
most complicated step towards MD simulations.
Atomes offers a user-friendly assistant to help and guide the user step by step
to achieve this crucial step.
Why this package is not eligible to be included in Fedora:
The mock build failed because Atomes requires ffmpeg-dev(to build)/ffmpeg(to
run)
therefore I do not think that it can be included in Fedora
rpmlint on the source package: 'rpmlint atomes-1.1.0-1.src.rpm'
======== rpmlint session starts ========
rpmlint: 2.2.0
configuration:
/usr/lib/python3.10/site-packages/rpmlint/configdefaults.toml
/etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora.toml
/etc/xdg/rpmlint/licenses.toml
/etc/xdg/rpmlint/scoring.toml
/etc/xdg/rpmlint/users-groups.toml
/etc/xdg/rpmlint/warn-on-functions.toml
checks: 32, packages: 1
======== 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 0 badness;
has taken 0.1 s ========
rpmlint on the binary package: 'atomes-1.1.0-1.x86_64.rpm'
======== rpmlint session starts ========
rpmlint: 2.2.0
configuration:
/usr/lib/python3.10/site-packages/rpmlint/configdefaults.toml
/etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora.toml
/etc/xdg/rpmlint/licenses.toml
/etc/xdg/rpmlint/scoring.toml
/etc/xdg/rpmlint/users-groups.toml
/etc/xdg/rpmlint/warn-on-functions.toml
checks: 32, packages: 1
atomes.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary atomes
atomes.x86_64: W: incoherent-version-in-changelog 1.1.0 ['1.1.0-1', '1.1.0-1']
======== 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings, 0 badness;
has taken 0.2 s ========
Warnings:
1) no manual page indeed, is it mandatory ?
2) no idea how to handle the '-1' (or any other for that matter) number at the
end and get a match with the version number
Finally this is the program's website: https://atomes.ipcms.fr/
The sources are available at:
https://github.com/Slookeur/Atomes
It is my first RPM fusion package !
And yes I am seeking a sponsor !
Thank you very much for your consideration ;-)
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.
1 year, 2 months
[Bug 5787] New: Review Request: libmysofa - C functions for reading
HRTFs
by RPM Fusion Bugzilla
https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=5787
Bug ID: 5787
Summary: Review Request: libmysofa - C functions for reading
HRTFs
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: rpi
SRPM:
http://dl.kwizart.net/review/gl4es-1.1.2-4.20201007git3259c93.fc31.src.rpm
SPEC: http://dl.kwizart.net/review/gl4es.spec
Summary: OpenGL to GL ES translation library
This package is a version for the rpi namespace
I expect this package to be useful along with a proprietary driver that lacks
libGL implementation (only has gles or egl like rpi).
I plan to (automatically) build a rpi agnostic version in a copr repository.
(and not on rpmfusion-free or nonfree because it's unknown which gles
implementation to target).
It's still a question whether this is useful given rpi can use either upstream
driver (with upstream kernel) or downstream driver (using kernel-rpi). But if
using the raspberrypi-vc userspace, a particular having a libGL would be
usefull given it's an assumption by the fedora userspace.
I don't plan to exclude the libGL to avoid dependency computation error given
that for the rpi namespace
Koji scratch build for f33:
http://koji.rpmfusion.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=440257
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are the assignee for the bug.
1 year, 3 months
[Bug 6367] New: Update Nvidia driver to version 515 for RHEL8.
by RPM Fusion Bugzilla
https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=6367
Bug ID: 6367
Summary: Update Nvidia driver to version 515 for RHEL8.
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: hmfhgzwcddhsxjfdzw(a)nthrw.com
CC: rpmfusion-package-review(a)rpmfusion.org
namespace: nonfree
The current version in RPMFusion of Nvidia Driver for RHEL8-based system is
510, I just want to make sure if version 515 will be available for RHEL8 in the
future.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are the assignee for the bug.
1 year, 3 months
FYI: ffmpegthumbs moved to Fedora (EPEL9, F36+)
by Neal Gompa
Hey all,
ffmpegthumbs has moved to Fedora with the KDE Gear 22.12.0 update for
EPEL9 and Fedora 36+.
I don't know how packages are retired in RPM Fusion, but the only
branch that needs to stick around for RPM Fusion now is the EPEL 8
branch.
Thanks in advance and best regards,
--
Neal Gompa (FAS: ngompa)
1 year, 3 months
RPM Fusion update report 2022-12-26
by noreply＠rpmfusion.org
RPM Fusion update report
------------------------
Section free:
-------------
Fedora 36
-------------
Pushed to testing:
shotcut-22.12.21-1.fc36
vdr-markad-3.0.29-1.fc36
vdr-softhddevice-1.9.7-1.fc36
Pushed to stable:
deadbeef-1.9.4-1.fc36
kdenlive-22.12.0-1.fc36
motion-4.5.1-1.fc36
python-ffmpeg-normalize-1.26.1-1.fc36
python-ffmpeg-progress-yield-0.6.1-1.fc36
rfpkg-1.27.2-1.fc36
Fedora 37
-------------
Pushed to testing:
kodi-19.5-1.fc37
shotcut-22.12.21-1.fc37
vdr-markad-3.0.29-1.fc37
vdr-softhddevice-1.9.7-1.fc37
Pushed to stable:
deadbeef-1.9.4-1.fc37
kdenlive-22.12.0-1.fc37
libheif-1.14.0-4.fc37
motion-4.5.1-1.fc37
python-ffmpeg-normalize-1.26.1-1.fc37
python-ffmpeg-progress-yield-0.6.1-1.fc37
rfpkg-1.27.2-1.fc37
rpmfusion-free-release-37-1
EL 7
-------------
Pushed to testing:
Pushed to stable:
rfpkg-1.27.2-1.el7
EL 8
-------------
Pushed to testing:
Pushed to stable:
rfpkg-1.27.2-1.el8
EL 9
-------------
Pushed to testing:
Pushed to stable:
libheif-1.14.0-4.el9
rfpkg-1.27.2-1.el9
Section nonfree:
-------------
Fedora 36
-------------
Pushed to testing:
Pushed to stable:
unifi-7.3.76-1.fc36
Fedora 37
-------------
Pushed to testing:
Pushed to stable:
rpmfusion-nonfree-release-37-1
unifi-7.3.76-1.fc37
EL 7
-------------
Pushed to testing:
Pushed to stable:
EL 8
-------------
Pushed to testing:
Pushed to stable:
unifi-7.3.76-1.el8
EL 9
-------------
Pushed to testing:
Pushed to stable:
unifi-7.3.76-1.el9
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
1 year, 3 months
RPM Fusion update report 2022-12-20
by noreply＠rpmfusion.org
RPM Fusion update report
------------------------
Section free:
-------------
Fedora 36
-------------
Pushed to testing:
deadbeef-1.9.4-1.fc36
kdenlive-22.12.0-1.fc36
motion-4.5.1-1.fc36
python-ffmpeg-normalize-1.26.1-1.fc36
python-ffmpeg-progress-yield-0.6.1-1.fc36
rfpkg-1.27.2-1.fc36
Pushed to stable:
chromium-freeworld-108.0.5359.124-1.fc36
pipewire-codec-aptx-0.3.63-1.fc36
ppsspp-1.14-1.fc36
python-ffmpeg-normalize-1.26.0-1.fc36
python-ffmpeg-progress-yield-0.5.0-1.fc36
Fedora 37
-------------
Pushed to testing:
deadbeef-1.9.4-1.fc37
kdenlive-22.12.0-1.fc37
libheif-1.14.0-4.fc37
mesa-freeworld-22.3.1-1.fc37
motion-4.5.1-1.fc37
python-ffmpeg-normalize-1.26.1-1.fc37
python-ffmpeg-progress-yield-0.6.1-1.fc37
rfpkg-1.27.2-1.fc37
Pushed to stable:
chromium-freeworld-108.0.5359.124-1.fc37
cinelerra-gg-5.1.2022.11-2.fc37
pipewire-codec-aptx-0.3.63-1.fc37
ppsspp-1.14-1.fc37
python-ffmpeg-normalize-1.26.0-1.fc37
python-ffmpeg-progress-yield-0.5.0-1.fc37
rpmfusion-free-release-37-1
EL 7
-------------
Pushed to testing:
rfpkg-1.27.2-1.el7
Pushed to stable:
EL 8
-------------
Pushed to testing:
rfpkg-1.27.2-1.el8
Pushed to stable:
VirtualBox-7.0.4-2.el8
VirtualBox-kmod-7.0.4-1.el8
EL 9
-------------
Pushed to testing:
libheif-1.14.0-4.el9
rfpkg-1.27.2-1.el9
Pushed to stable:
VirtualBox-7.0.4-2.el9
VirtualBox-kmod-7.0.4-1.el9
Section nonfree:
-------------
Fedora 36
-------------
Pushed to testing:
nvidia-kmod-525.47.04-1.fc36
nvidia-vaapi-driver-0.0.8-1.fc36
unifi-7.3.76-1.fc36
xorg-x11-drv-nvidia-525.47.04-1.fc36
Pushed to stable:
megasync-4.7.3.0-2.fc36
Fedora 37
-------------
Pushed to testing:
nvidia-vaapi-driver-0.0.8-1.fc37
unifi-7.3.76-1.fc37
Pushed to stable:
megasync-4.7.3.0-2.fc37
rpmfusion-nonfree-release-37-1
EL 7
-------------
Pushed to testing:
Pushed to stable:
EL 8
-------------
Pushed to testing:
unifi-7.3.76-1.el8
Pushed to stable:
EL 9
-------------
Pushed to testing:
nvidia-vaapi-driver-0.0.8-1.el9
unifi-7.3.76-1.el9
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
1 year, 3 months
Re: [pipewire-codec-aptx/f37] Bump Pipewire version
by Sérgio Basto
On Sat, 2022-12-17 at 17:18 +0100, Vitaly Zaitsev via rpmfusion-
developers wrote:
> On 17/12/2022 15:14, Sérgio Basto wrote:
> > Question , shouldn't the update match with Fedora counter part [2]
> > ?
>
> The same for mesa. That's why I don't like splitting packages between
> Fedora and RPM Fusion.
>
Hi,
IMHO broken dpes shouldn't be a great deal , that why I started the
Broken deps, What to do ? in FAQ [1], IMHO we should educate our users
to enable testing repos or not to deal this out of syncs , and report
it properly if the package maintainer didn't have update the
counterpart.
[1]
https://rpmfusion.org/FAQ#Broken_deps.2C_What_to_do_.3F
--
Sérgio M. B.
1 year, 3 months
