[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.
7 months, 3 weeks
[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.
8 months, 4 weeks
[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.
8 months, 4 weeks
[Bug 6396] New: Review request: man-pages-posix - POSIX interface
documentation
by RPM Fusion Bugzilla
https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=6396
Bug ID: 6396
Summary: Review request: man-pages-posix - POSIX interface
documentation
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: fedora(a)sicherha.de
CC: rpmfusion-package-review(a)rpmfusion.org
namespace: nonfree
URLs
----
https://www4.cs.fau.de/~erhardt/foo/man-pages-posix/man-pages-posix.spec
https://www4.cs.fau.de/~erhardt/foo/man-pages-posix/man-pages-posix-2017a...
Description
-----------
A collection of POSIX manual pages from the Linux Documentation Project (LDP).
Background
----------
As of August 2022, the POSIX man pages are no longer included in Fedora's
`man-pages` package because of licensing concerns. See
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2116859 for more information.
rpmlint output
--------------
$ rpmlint man-pages-posix-2017a-1.fc36.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 man-pages-posix-2017a-1.fc36.noarch.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
man-pages-posix.noarch: W: package-with-huge-docs: 100%
======= 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings, 0 badness;
has taken 0.4 s =======
Unsurprisingly, this package consists of 100 % documentation, so I feel the
'package-with-huge-docs' warning can be safely ignored.
Author information
------------------
This is my first RPM Fusion package; I am not yet a member of the packagers
group.
I do, however, officially maintain a small number of packages in the Fedora
project; namely mold, powerline and python-jenkins-job-builder.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are the assignee for the bug.
10 months, 1 week
Final f37 freeze in about one week
by Nicolas Chauvet
Hi there,
According to schedule, the f37 is in the 4th of October:
https://fedorapeople.org/groups/schedule/f-37/f-37-key-tasks.html
There is a need to sort out which "feature" we want to have in our GA
repository, basically:
- Package that need to be removed (Leigh has removed some)
- Adapt comps
- others ? (please state).
On my side I want to rework the ffmpeg package to get back to normal
(so conflicts with fedora will be restored) and only drop a libavcodec
freeworld replacement in an additional dedicated sub-package (with
ldconfig override) to complement the fedora counterpart.
It means the best of two worlds:
- Having our ffmpeg build to be fully autonomous.
Do not require small pieces of fedora ffmpeg, and don't wait for
counterpart updates, which have been "dramatic" in the past, specially
with chromium.
- It will also provide a means to complement the fedora ffmpeg-free
one from the same package (and to not require a dedicated build,
maintenance).
Of course, I persist in the statement from Common_Bugs
https://rpmfusion.org/CommonBugs#FFmpeg-free%20conflicts
So I don't want to be involved in bugs that would occur in the
fedora/original/counterpart/complement packaging myself.
But I'm open to review/ease anyone willing to maintain this solution.
This also opens the discussion for a mesa-freeworld solution. As I
have provided various hints to do so in different places (like
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2123998 ).
Beyond that I hope Fedora 37 will be a good release!
--
-
Nicolas (kwizart)
10 months, 3 weeks
Vulkan beta nvidia driver
by Nicolas Chauvet
Hi there,
I've just started a dedicated vulkan-beta branch into our git
repository to have a means to provide the driver. It's still hacky, so
I have provided the driver in a separate place until this can be
sorted out...
Here is a quick howto:
curl -O https://dl.kwizart.net/pub/vulkan-beta/vulkan-beta-nvidia-driver.repo
--output-dir /etc/yum.repos.
dnf update --disablerepo=rpmfusion-nonfree-updates,rpmfusion-nonfree-nvidia-driver-rawhide,cuda-fedora35-x86_64,copr:copr.fedorainfracloud.org:kwizart:nvidia-driver-rawhide
--nogpgcheck
rpm -qa \*nvidia\* >> /etc/dnf/plugins/versionlock.list
Hope this helps
--
-
Nicolas (kwizart)
12 months
RPM Fusion update report 2022-09-30
by noreply＠rpmfusion.org
RPM Fusion update report
------------------------
Section free:
-------------
Fedora 35
-------------
Pushed to testing:
ffmpegthumbs-22.08.1-1.fc35
vdr-markad-3.0.26-1.fc35
Pushed to stable:
mock-rpmfusion-free-37.0-1.fc35
Fedora 36
-------------
Pushed to testing:
ffmpegthumbs-22.08.1-1.fc36
kdenlive-22.08.1-1.fc36
ppsspp-1.13.2-1.fc36
shotcut-22.09.23-1.fc36
tg_owt-0-26.20220508git10d5f4b.fc36
vdr-markad-3.0.26-1.fc36
Pushed to stable:
audacity-freeworld-3.2.0-1.fc36
mlt-freeworld-7.8.0-1.fc36
mock-rpmfusion-free-37.0-1.fc36
Fedora 37
-------------
Pushed to testing:
chromium-freeworld-106.0.5249.61-2.fc37
ffmpeg-5.1.2-1.fc37
ffmpegthumbs-22.08.1-1.fc37
kdenlive-22.08.1-1.fc37
ppsspp-1.13.2-1.fc37
shotcut-22.09.23-1.fc37
tg_owt-0-26.20220508git10d5f4b.fc37
vdr-markad-3.0.26-1.fc37
vlc-3.0.18-0.3.rc.fc37
Pushed to stable:
audacity-freeworld-3.2.0-1.fc37
mock-rpmfusion-free-37.0-1.fc37
EL 7
-------------
Pushed to testing:
Pushed to stable:
mock-rpmfusion-free-37.0-1.el7
EL 8
-------------
Pushed to testing:
Pushed to stable:
mock-rpmfusion-free-37.0-1.el8
EL 9
-------------
Pushed to testing:
Pushed to stable:
Section nonfree:
-------------
Fedora 35
-------------
Pushed to testing:
megasync-4.7.0.0-1.fc35
Pushed to stable:
mock-rpmfusion-nonfree-37.0-1.fc35
Fedora 36
-------------
Pushed to testing:
megasync-4.7.0.0-1.fc36
nvidia-kmod-515.49.18-1.fc36
xorg-x11-drv-nvidia-515.49.18-1.fc36
Pushed to stable:
mock-rpmfusion-nonfree-37.0-1.fc36
Fedora 37
-------------
Pushed to testing:
megasync-4.7.0.0-1.fc37
nvidia-kmod-515.76-2.fc37
nvidia-modprobe-515.76-2.fc37
nvidia-persistenced-515.76-2.fc37
nvidia-settings-515.76-2.fc37
nvidia-xconfig-515.76-2.fc37
xorg-x11-drv-nvidia-515.76-2.fc37
Pushed to stable:
mock-rpmfusion-nonfree-37.0-1.fc37
rpmfusion-nonfree-obsolete-packages-37-3.fc37
EL 7
-------------
Pushed to testing:
Pushed to stable:
mock-rpmfusion-nonfree-37.0-1.el7
EL 8
-------------
Pushed to testing:
Pushed to stable:
mock-rpmfusion-nonfree-37.0-1.el8
EL 9
-------------
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
12 months
[Bug 6335] New: Review request: jellyfin - The Free Software Media
System
by RPM Fusion Bugzilla
https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=6335
Bug ID: 6335
Summary: Review request: jellyfin - The Free Software Media
System
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: mike(a)cchtml.com
CC: rpmfusion-package-review(a)rpmfusion.org
namespace: free
SPEC URL: https://michael.cronenworth.com/RPMS/jellyfin.spec
SRPM URL: https://michael.cronenworth.com/RPMS/jellyfin-10.8.0-1.fc36.src.rpm
(Note: Due to being 700MB in size I will be removing the SRPM after the
review.)
Description: Jellyfin is a media system based on .NET and has ships a web UI
client by default. There are many other clients that offer interfaces on
numerous devices. It is a fork of Emby, but the code base has changed
significantly since the fork.
Caveats:
- I started with upstream's SPEC so there may be a stray problem. It was almost
re-written.
- Upstream has a modified ffmpeg with non-upstream patches. They are mainly for
hardware acceleration fixes. This package still works against RPMFusion's
ffmpeg. It will take some extra investigation if they are upstreaming their
patches. Upstream may reject users asking for help if they find out they are
using our package without the ffmpeg "upgrades".
- A library shipped by the .NET runtime depends on an older library for F36+.
I've stripped the library until the issue is resolved. Noted in SPEC.
- Since it is a .NET and NodeJS app it requires Internet access to build. I've
put together a script to provide an offline cache of required dependencies.
$ rpmlint jellyfin.spec
============================ 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
jellyfin.spec: W: invalid-url Source4: jellyfin-npm.tar.xz
jellyfin.spec: W: invalid-url Source3: jellyfin-nupkgs2.tar.xz
jellyfin.spec: W: invalid-url Source2: jellyfin-nupkgs.tar.xz
0 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 3 warnings, 0 badness; has taken
0.0 s
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are the assignee for the bug.
1 year
Re: [vlc] Workaround breaking api with dcp
by Sérgio Basto
On Tue, 2022-09-27 at 13:18 +0200, Nicolas Chauvet wrote:
> %ifarch x86_64 ppc64le aarch64
> +%if ! 0%{?fedora} >= 37
> %global _with_asdcp 1
> %endif
> +%endif
you need use parentheses
as you wrote is groupped
%if (! 0%{?fedora}) >=37
and is always false
you need parentheses like this:
%if ! (0%{?fedora} >=37 )
--
Sérgio M. B.
1 year
