7:31 p.m.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA256
Hi all,
these libraries (and others probably) are not available yet on Fedora
22 and devel branch.
Please, require a rebuild
(https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=3821) as soon as possible:
faad2
libmpeg2
libdca
twolame
Thanks.
- --
Antonio Trande
mailto: sagitter 'at' fedoraproject 'dot' org
http://fedoraos.wordpress.com/
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Sagitter
GPG Key: 0x565E653C
Check on https://keys.fedoraproject.org/
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2
iQEcBAEBCAAGBQJWeaUBAAoJEF5tK7VWXmU88y4H/2+50Ep+GNYuOU/yafnYgRyJ
1q1lM0uOGq9ladoXWsQGhp9BM6+3aS1d04TJcK39/U4pl4gy+h93Fv0687/dXoVW
zJVZ93mwkH/GMwipPrLnHQ9WX8FHgMewbHdgb7F5TCfdk+yEY7uIRCWFKDPXVNg7
vctqAb5M8EI7+NwWcKrCdF6Bzy2ND1mnJIrk79nDGP/c3p6CjNKACFEV0ZddE9Jt
DAyRH9IBdAxoth0tm93KKQJtXokQx9iHqtqwd0YrMmXWJJhSFyBDiy89viWtKd+p
1KbMYMvuT1eaamNL8JitW9VfVbfdNG4WrJDrMISaTcszWKIMPAeQG4FiCKeJOuI=
=zQDP
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
7:47 p.m.
Hello
On Ter, 2015-12-22 at 20:31 +0100, Antonio Trande wrote:
Hi all,
these libraries (and others probably) are not available yet on Fedora
22 and devel branch.
Please, require a rebuild
(https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=3821) as soon as poss
ible:
faad2
libmpeg2
libdca
twolame
They are available in F23 at least :
dnf repoquery --qf "%{sourcerpm} %{arch} %{repoid}" faad2 libmpeg2
libdca twolame | grep -v System
faad2-2.7-6.fc22.src.rpm i686 rpmfusion-free
faad2-2.7-6.fc22.src.rpm x86_64 rpmfusion-free
libdca-0.0.5-9.fc22.src.rpm i686 rpmfusion-free
libdca-0.0.5-9.fc22.src.rpm x86_64 rpmfusion-free
libmpeg2-0.5.1-11.fc22.src.rpm i686 rpmfusion-free
libmpeg2-0.5.1-11.fc22.src.rpm x86_64 rpmfusion-free
twolame-0.3.13-4.fc22.src.rpm i686 rpmfusion-free
twolame-0.3.13-4.fc22.src.rpm x86_64 rpmfusion-free
--
Sérgio M. B.
8 p.m.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA256
On 12/22/2015 08:47 PM, Sérgio Basto wrote:
Hello
On Ter, 2015-12-22 at 20:31 +0100, Antonio Trande wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> these libraries (and others probably) are not available yet on
> Fedora 22 and devel branch. Please, require a rebuild
> (https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=3821) as soon as
> poss ible:
>
> faad2 libmpeg2 libdca twolame
They are available in F23 at least :
dnf repoquery --qf "%{sourcerpm} %{arch} %{repoid}" faad2
libmpeg2 libdca twolame | grep -v System
faad2-2.7-6.fc22.src.rpm i686 rpmfusion-free
faad2-2.7-6.fc22.src.rpm x86_64 rpmfusion-free
libdca-0.0.5-9.fc22.src.rpm i686 rpmfusion-free
libdca-0.0.5-9.fc22.src.rpm x86_64 rpmfusion-free
libmpeg2-0.5.1-11.fc22.src.rpm i686 rpmfusion-free
libmpeg2-0.5.1-11.fc22.src.rpm x86_64 rpmfusion-free
twolame-0.3.13-4.fc22.src.rpm i686 rpmfusion-free
twolame-0.3.13-4.fc22.src.rpm x86_64 rpmfusion-free
fc22 ?
Have you done an upgrade of Fedora?
Or, does RPMFusion for F23 provide mixed packages?
- --
Antonio Trande
mailto: sagitter 'at' fedoraproject 'dot' org
http://fedoraos.wordpress.com/
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Sagitter
GPG Key: 0x565E653C
Check on https://keys.fedoraproject.org/
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2
iQEcBAEBCAAGBQJWeau7AAoJEF5tK7VWXmU81BgH/3ADJIGGA1ysbtfl2G2RYHzs
VemsOWTx58+peKftRLk/Fy0f8gUmrDgziQGPEjqbnbKzSk7QgX9uFE7Fg+ysUzdY
v9qO8FdTKmHTNQWUzMKjKeWG9m5vBkY/lJ4vBB0oZEg7JeT5B52usTC5xKqSqwkj
g16ydBD+9BLDpOroUEUXiNQ5nukPQBARFXudAAfSFfJ0vC+L4Sr5a5w2Zd3OXO/O
4yfdxdZ6nmEih7oVOfc+4rDBfDNIJqYz5zGTc4b4FYZmpRcdmJN8L5e496oZ1ZDd
2Htvv9ujjKTyfN6UKIz9vbQhEse9G9fgD3DA0/xhHDV8aTQFctmG6WFqe4iX5a4=
=4YrH
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
9:40 p.m.
On Ter, 2015-12-22 at 21:00 +0100, Antonio Trande wrote:
On 12/22/2015 08:47 PM, Sérgio Basto wrote:
> Hello
>
> On Ter, 2015-12-22 at 20:31 +0100, Antonio Trande wrote:
> > Hi all,
> >
> > these libraries (and others probably) are not available yet on
> > Fedora 22 and devel branch. Please, require a rebuild
> > (https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=3821) as soon as
> > poss ible:
> >
> > faad2 libmpeg2 libdca twolame
>
> They are available in F23 at least :
>
> dnf repoquery --qf "%{sourcerpm} %{arch} %{repoid}" faad2
> libmpeg2 libdca twolame | grep -v System
>
> faad2-2.7-6.fc22.src.rpm i686 rpmfusion-free
> faad2-2.7-6.fc22.src.rpm x86_64 rpmfusion-free
> libdca-0.0.5-9.fc22.src.rpm i686 rpmfusion-free
> libdca-0.0.5-9.fc22.src.rpm x86_64 rpmfusion-free
> libmpeg2-0.5.1-11.fc22.src.rpm i686 rpmfusion-free
> libmpeg2-0.5.1-11.fc22.src.rpm x86_64 rpmfusion-free
> twolame-0.3.13-4.fc22.src.rpm i686 rpmfusion-free
> twolame-0.3.13-4.fc22.src.rpm x86_64 rpmfusion-free
>
fc22 ?
Have you done an upgrade of Fedora?
Or, does RPMFusion for F23 provide mixed packages?
Yes , sort of , when we rebuild the package it get fc23 tag , but those
packages don't got rebuild so stay with f22 , it is common happens this
.
Fedora have done a mass rebuild for all packages for this release so
all packages should have fc23 tag but is an exception .
--
Sérgio M. B.
11:12 a.m.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA256
On 12/22/2015 10:40 PM, Sérgio Basto wrote:
On Ter, 2015-12-22 at 21:00 +0100, Antonio Trande wrote:
> On 12/22/2015 08:47 PM, Sérgio Basto wrote:
>> Hello
>>
>> On Ter, 2015-12-22 at 20:31 +0100, Antonio Trande wrote:
>>> Hi all,
>>>
>>> these libraries (and others probably) are not available yet
>>> on Fedora 22 and devel branch. Please, require a rebuild
>>> (https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=3821) as soon
>>> as poss ible:
>>>
>>> faad2 libmpeg2 libdca twolame
>>
>> They are available in F23 at least :
>>
>> dnf repoquery --qf "%{sourcerpm} %{arch} %{repoid}" faad2
>> libmpeg2 libdca twolame | grep -v System
>>
>> faad2-2.7-6.fc22.src.rpm i686 rpmfusion-free
>> faad2-2.7-6.fc22.src.rpm x86_64 rpmfusion-free
>> libdca-0.0.5-9.fc22.src.rpm i686 rpmfusion-free
>> libdca-0.0.5-9.fc22.src.rpm x86_64 rpmfusion-free
>> libmpeg2-0.5.1-11.fc22.src.rpm i686 rpmfusion-free
>> libmpeg2-0.5.1-11.fc22.src.rpm x86_64 rpmfusion-free
>> twolame-0.3.13-4.fc22.src.rpm i686 rpmfusion-free
>> twolame-0.3.13-4.fc22.src.rpm x86_64 rpmfusion-free
>>
>
> fc22 ?
>
> Have you done an upgrade of Fedora? Or, does RPMFusion for F23
> provide mixed packages?
Yes , sort of , when we rebuild the package it get fc23 tag , but
those packages don't got rebuild so stay with f22 , it is common
happens this
Okay; I think they should be rebuilt anyway though.
. Fedora have done a mass rebuild for all packages for this release
so all packages should have fc23 tag but is an exception .
- --
Antonio Trande
mailto: sagitter 'at' fedoraproject 'dot' org
http://fedoraos.wordpress.com/
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Sagitter
GPG Key: 0x565E653C
Check on https://keys.fedoraproject.org/
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2
iQEcBAEBCAAGBQJWeoGUAAoJEF5tK7VWXmU8V+IIAK88ICAwU93i76+vtaHNXmrc
b4PBEBq8DEvkhs9GgJt+W+qgO3i5C5ECLPYogXHDwpQhRpcbKJ/UPzwAgWHDh8tS
ep0LZlarTZjsS+EEmE6fbRuFOSC36PkdIDUST7qjLD3J6kOSh/RaSLKBKITtlG0I
yVhHpxoS5fWfQJGJp/B7DDf2Cce10z2iXx8dac4AKIPCiHwFf+thgeNNDe5YKsaT
C2KxQmdAwjYcploWCcgyBeYiYJTyeABNcLkkz3cZcBMp+6BWKwl4CWjyir+oTe2y
mRyk1QKZSUZxmICMyx8yr86ptS4xM35VKO+Mmk4OfjiEf9/jRuLJyYlk36RCxLI=
=72Ad
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
8:51 p.m.
2015-12-22 20:31 GMT+01:00 Antonio Trande <anto.trande(a)gmail.com>:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA256
Hi all,
these libraries (and others probably) are not available yet on Fedora
22 and devel branch.
Please, require a rebuild
(https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=3821) as soon as possible:
faad2
libmpeg2
libdca
twolame
All of them are actually available,
please double check your system.
Nicolas (kwizart)
9:20 p.m.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA256
On 12/23/2015 09:51 PM, Nicolas Chauvet wrote:
2015-12-22 20:31 GMT+01:00 Antonio Trande <anto.trande(a)gmail.com
<mailto:anto.trande@gmail.com>>:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA256
Hi all,
these libraries (and others probably) are not available yet on
Fedora 22 and devel branch. Please, require a rebuild
(https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=3821) as soon as
possible:
faad2 libmpeg2 libdca twolame
All of them are actually available, please double check your
system.
Nicolas (kwizart)
Hi Nicolas,
are available as fc23 packages?
- --
Antonio Trande
mailto: sagitter 'at' fedoraproject 'dot' org
http://fedoraos.wordpress.com/
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Sagitter
GPG Key: 0x565E653C
Check on https://keys.fedoraproject.org/
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2
iQEcBAEBCAAGBQJWexAtAAoJEF5tK7VWXmU8lUIH/1Es7u0fSU+GAtJs6hKTEDWw
nslrJpA7/7u1t0Lcy5lHYAC7Rm3AanudadcE+i4e6HUTRuXkRu3vGMPiU7jP87xR
hTprujoQlbEE6Xp9kaPwcAF9dkT3puMhUj5n0NZbKKWCr9bXFM8k2lJnnL1vCLWV
ybqVKt5mCRIWWJZn2qZ4AAS+6Z1a8LyQsU+X+/b/3EyEWr528IrzSFY4Hr60Psnp
BWu2bv7dIvboznlOmLiJhRd7cf1TtCc0R/iMVXysXKojnD2vj2U1GBehMltyvi+4
e23v3BBl8UIshsxtgWb+O+FapBGp2iGz4TomqqwMLBHGcjm/bmbAZ6XULZd9VFs=
=Ix0U
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
11:32 p.m.
On Qua, 2015-12-23 at 22:20 +0100, Antonio Trande wrote:
On 12/23/2015 09:51 PM, Nicolas Chauvet wrote:
> 2015-12-22 20:31 GMT+01:00 Antonio Trande <anto.trande(a)gmail.com
> <mailto:anto.trande@gmail.com>>:
>
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA256
>
> Hi all,
>
> these libraries (and others probably) are not available yet on
> Fedora 22 and devel branch. Please, require a rebuild
> (https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=3821) as soon as
> possible:
>
> faad2 libmpeg2 libdca twolame
>
>
> All of them are actually available, please double check your
> system.
>
> Nicolas (kwizart)
>
Hi Nicolas,
are available as fc23 packages?
no , they are available as fc22 in F23
--
Sérgio M. B.
10:02 a.m.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA256
On 12/24/2015 12:32 AM, Sérgio Basto wrote:
On Qua, 2015-12-23 at 22:20 +0100, Antonio Trande wrote:
> On 12/23/2015 09:51 PM, Nicolas Chauvet wrote:
>> 2015-12-22 20:31 GMT+01:00 Antonio Trande
>> <anto.trande(a)gmail.com <mailto:anto.trande@gmail.com>>:
>>
>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA256
>>
>> Hi all,
>>
>> these libraries (and others probably) are not available yet on
>> Fedora 22 and devel branch. Please, require a rebuild
>> (https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=3821) as soon
>> as possible:
>>
>> faad2 libmpeg2 libdca twolame
>>
>>
>> All of them are actually available, please double check your
>> system.
>>
>> Nicolas (kwizart)
>>
>
> Hi Nicolas,
>
> are available as fc23 packages?
no , they are available as fc22 in F23
Honestly, I don't understand how we can tolerate something like that,
that is using on Fedora 23 some packages built on Fedora 22; is there
not any dependency issue?
- --
Antonio Trande
mailto: sagitter 'at' fedoraproject 'dot' org
http://fedoraos.wordpress.com/
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Sagitter
GPG Key: 0x565E653C
Check on https://keys.fedoraproject.org/
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2
iQEcBAEBCAAGBQJWe8KdAAoJEF5tK7VWXmU8oJMH/RwTV31K5HhtXZ+4vgFT4lsA
AMpIxh0irWE1RiQyo8dvT1mRxSe2CoLBRZD/lPje52zqPTZD3AGIjNfRkhfdV/JO
9ATkoaRuEwdBE2WYjugZwtDrtF/KPgQy5bZSbZYruxAXKYbkepE3Y4JFLQ5TW5TL
Vz21Ef8EVvq3rIdmRAj9glVKYkGU1pd+zuxQg+7edM3t6l56WxGSXQm48O8MVVVy
xebHI2XHizRrBQsBkQvcY0PySmrA1rleXD5GiPL7+o20Co2cOHOlCn38fNbBre45
Nhaz1IrAx4ynSetmR2y92Zn3gIGFT/8DrzddSWcg0ssnGVybqK7Y/1wuH/rxM4A=
=ptLS
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
11:26 p.m.
On Thursday, 24 December 2015 at 11:02, Antonio Trande wrote:
On 12/24/2015 12:32 AM, S�rgio Basto wrote:
> On Qua, 2015-12-23 at 22:20 +0100, Antonio Trande wrote:
>> On 12/23/2015 09:51 PM, Nicolas Chauvet wrote:
>>> 2015-12-22 20:31 GMT+01:00 Antonio Trande
>>> <anto.trande(a)gmail.com <mailto:anto.trande@gmail.com>>:
>>>
>>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA256
>>>
>>> Hi all,
>>>
>>> these libraries (and others probably) are not available yet on
>>> Fedora 22 and devel branch. Please, require a rebuild
>>> (https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=3821) as soon
>>> as possible:
>>>
>>> faad2 libmpeg2 libdca twolame
>>>
>>>
>>> All of them are actually available, please double check your
>>> system.
>>>
>>> Nicolas (kwizart)
>>>
>>
>> Hi Nicolas,
>>
>> are available as fc23 packages?
>
> no , they are available as fc22 in F23
>
Honestly, I don't understand how we can tolerate something like that,
that is using on Fedora 23 some packages built on Fedora 22; is there
not any dependency issue?
No. RPM doesn't care about disttag for dependencies unless you actually
specify a dependency using it, e.g.:
Requires: foo = 1.1-2.fc23
As long as SONAMEs match (or actually, as long as Provides: match), the
dependencies are satisfied. There's nothing wrong with having .fc22
packages in F23+ repos.
Regards,
Dominik
--
Fedora http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Rathann
RPMFusion http://rpmfusion.org
"Faith manages."
-- Delenn to Lennier in Babylon 5:"Confessions and Lamentations"
11:48 p.m.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA256
On 12/27/2015 12:26 AM, Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski wrote:
On Thursday, 24 December 2015 at 11:02, Antonio Trande wrote:
> On 12/24/2015 12:32 AM, S�rgio Basto wrote:
>> On Qua, 2015-12-23 at 22:20 +0100, Antonio Trande wrote:
>>> On 12/23/2015 09:51 PM, Nicolas Chauvet wrote:
>>>> 2015-12-22 20:31 GMT+01:00 Antonio Trande
>>>> <anto.trande(a)gmail.com <mailto:anto.trande@gmail.com>>:
>>>>
>>>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA256
>>>>
>>>> Hi all,
>>>>
>>>> these libraries (and others probably) are not available yet
>>>> on Fedora 22 and devel branch. Please, require a rebuild
>>>> (https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=3821) as
>>>> soon as possible:
>>>>
>>>> faad2 libmpeg2 libdca twolame
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> All of them are actually available, please double check
>>>> your system.
>>>>
>>>> Nicolas (kwizart)
>>>>
>>>
>>> Hi Nicolas,
>>>
>>> are available as fc23 packages?
>>
>> no , they are available as fc22 in F23
>>
>
> Honestly, I don't understand how we can tolerate something like
> that, that is using on Fedora 23 some packages built on Fedora
> 22; is there not any dependency issue?
No. RPM doesn't care about disttag for dependencies unless you
actually specify a dependency using it, e.g.: Requires: foo =
1.1-2.fc23
As long as SONAMEs match (or actually, as long as Provides: match),
the dependencies are satisfied. There's nothing wrong with having
.fc22 packages in F23+ repos.
In 'faad2' case or some other case, yes for now.
How do you know if a .fc22 package works fine on Fedora 23 if you
don't rebuild?
Also, RPMFusion respects Fedora packaging guidelines or not? Are you
sure that in the meantime a package don't need any other changes like
License packaging, dependency between sub-packages, or any minor fixes?
Regards.
- --
Antonio Trande
mailto: sagitter 'at' fedoraproject 'dot' org
http://fedoraos.wordpress.com/
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Sagitter
GPG Key: 0x565E653C
Check on https://keys.fedoraproject.org/
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2
iQEcBAEBCAAGBQJWfydSAAoJEF5tK7VWXmU8/NQIAKrVRStGTdPm4xgWtpFp5C5w
eFtbhUnRqBnQ+oxEotuGFt1oyoqa5BYHWaoJ5XdY21hXFfP6v2H9BywTV3MN/07B
itdx95emAvm9m5cNfi/Ft10qu00n1Ygm9h9w5dPsZvCSrnsNhL4sA+h9FTkqpR5E
hHW5aLsPbjSqMEoLi+1H+g65JRWzEdknTAKB6pUpY1UIQEzF+as8VvHyJL/LlN1K
0If8cy96R0ksPGsBZPY/+P5MB/4Mk4sQSywVXLO13zhClmY86QHwMFFozoACfe/4
MY7jfdZk5QptKWJFwJp5S/ukAWdB4TeIwvquCe66VAjpRsp2j6quBHcr0BKK2ak=
=KrN/
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
12:11 a.m.
On Dom, 2015-12-27 at 00:48 +0100, Antonio Trande wrote:
On 12/27/2015 12:26 AM, Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski
wrote:
> On Thursday, 24 December 2015 at 11:02, Antonio Trande wrote:
> > On 12/24/2015 12:32 AM, S�rgio Basto wrote:
> > > On Qua, 2015-12-23 at 22:20 +0100, Antonio Trande wrote:
> > > > On 12/23/2015 09:51 PM, Nicolas Chauvet wrote:
> > > > > 2015-12-22 20:31 GMT+01:00 Antonio Trande
> > > > > <anto.trande(a)gmail.com
<mailto:anto.trande@gmail.com>>:
> > > > >
> > > > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA256
> > > > >
> > > > > Hi all,
> > > > >
> > > > > these libraries (and others probably) are not available yet
> > > > > on Fedora 22 and devel branch. Please, require a rebuild
> > > > > (https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=3821) as
> > > > > soon as possible:
> > > > >
> > > > > faad2 libmpeg2 libdca twolame
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > All of them are actually available, please double check
> > > > > your system.
> > > > >
> > > > > Nicolas (kwizart)
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > Hi Nicolas,
> > > >
> > > > are available as fc23 packages?
> > >
> > > no , they are available as fc22 in F23
> > >
> >
> > Honestly, I don't understand how we can tolerate something like
> > that, that is using on Fedora 23 some packages built on Fedora
> > 22; is there not any dependency issue?
>
> No. RPM doesn't care about disttag for dependencies unless you
> actually specify a dependency using it, e.g.: Requires: foo =
> 1.1-2.fc23
>
> As long as SONAMEs match (or actually, as long as Provides: match),
> the dependencies are satisfied. There's nothing wrong with having
> .fc22 packages in F23+ repos.
>
In 'faad2' case or some other case, yes for now.
How do you know if a .fc22 package works fine on Fedora 23 if you
don't rebuild?
Look at this link [1] for example Fedora 22 release , searching for
fc21 , firefox says more than 100 , only in letter R
[1]
http://mirrors.eu.kernel.org/fedora/releases/22/Everything/source/SRPMS
/r/
Also, RPMFusion respects Fedora packaging guidelines or not?
yes we do
Are you
sure that in the meantime a package don't need any other changes like
License packaging, dependency between sub-packages, or any minor
fixes?
Regards.
--
Sérgio M. B.
12:48 a.m.
On 12/27/2015 01:11 AM, Sérgio Basto wrote:
> Also, RPMFusion respects Fedora packaging guidelines or not?
yes we do
Aparently RPMFusion does not repect the FPG. Packages complying to the
FPG are supposed to have been rebuilt for f23 and therefore to carry a
package suffix of ".f23".
The fact Fedora carries packages with a package suffix != .fc23 isn't a
valid excuse. Technically this simply means these packages FTBS'ed.
Ralf
8:04 a.m.
On Sun, Dec 27, 2015 at 01:48:23AM +0100, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
On 12/27/2015 01:11 AM, Sérgio Basto wrote:
>>Also, RPMFusion respects Fedora packaging guidelines or not?
>
>yes we do
Aparently RPMFusion does not repect the FPG. Packages complying to the FPG
are supposed to have been rebuilt for f23 and therefore to carry a package
suffix of ".f23".
Not really. There are often mass rebuild during Fedora development,
caused by various reasons: new GCC, change of default compiler flags,
hardening etc. But mass rebuild is not required for every Fedora release.
--
Tomasz Torcz "God, root, what's the difference?"
xmpp: zdzichubg(a)chrome.pl "God is more forgiving."
10:51 a.m.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA256
On 12/27/2015 09:04 AM, Tomasz Torcz wrote:
On Sun, Dec 27, 2015 at 01:48:23AM +0100, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
> On 12/27/2015 01:11 AM, Sérgio Basto wrote:
>
>>> Also, RPMFusion respects Fedora packaging guidelines or not?
>>
>> yes we do
>
> Aparently RPMFusion does not repect the FPG. Packages complying
> to the FPG are supposed to have been rebuilt for f23 and
> therefore to carry a package suffix of ".f23".
Not really. There are often mass rebuild during Fedora
development, caused by various reasons: new GCC, change of default
compiler flags, hardening etc. But mass rebuild is not required
for every Fedora release.
At last someone comprehends what I meant.
Beyond .fc suffix (that could create confusion during Fedora upgrade
however), here you're saying that RPMFusion packages must not be
audited periodically, even for months, it's enough they work.
I ask again, how can we know if a package .fc(x) compiles/works fine
on Fedora(x+n) without a rebuild?
- --
Antonio Trande
mailto: sagitter 'at' fedoraproject 'dot' org
http://fedoraos.wordpress.com/
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Sagitter
GPG Key: 0x565E653C
Check on https://keys.fedoraproject.org/
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2
iQEcBAEBCAAGBQJWf8KsAAoJEF5tK7VWXmU8RLcH/igoXg+afHUXBY4SJVwL7VN5
6NIh73qWm63TnMOqeUh4lsVEEety1WoiYfyirDRD05H08SGZCfdv5/1hK4wsX0XP
a19Ul1ZAdcxOnwPDlYgHMh27x2k6NYFCcRdyqaKavU4eUiJXjeLSpdREavy01cs2
axa1V7haS5CrWojDDkXiJgCAIwKzOS1OWuJxhM2y3gfZojJDJ4yhXAPoh9ECR3wc
d8Jyxd7IpYT6R6GpkJg/xyJbIwb3AMPv2jPQuMLtFRPpG/geU9zwh9bLf0HPSlY+
wTLMFN1fxnJyKcB/q53ZNVNhakxTwwGr1Xr39+E9kMUyhbZhwNbK3KU2DMQ4gqw=
=etVC
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
12:30 a.m.
On Dom, 2015-12-27 at 11:51 +0100, Antonio Trande wrote:
On 12/27/2015 09:04 AM, Tomasz Torcz wrote:
> On Sun, Dec 27, 2015 at 01:48:23AM +0100, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
> > On 12/27/2015 01:11 AM, Sérgio Basto wrote:
> >
> > > > Also, RPMFusion respects Fedora packaging guidelines or not?
> > >
> > > yes we do
> >
> > Aparently RPMFusion does not repect the FPG. Packages complying
> > to the FPG are supposed to have been rebuilt for f23 and
> > therefore to carry a package suffix of ".f23".
>
> Not really. There are often mass rebuild during Fedora
> development, caused by various reasons: new GCC, change of default
> compiler flags, hardening etc. But mass rebuild is not required
> for every Fedora release.
>
At last someone comprehends what I meant.
Beyond .fc suffix (that could create confusion during Fedora upgrade
however), here you're saying that RPMFusion packages must not be
audited periodically, even for months, it's enough they work.
I ask again, how can we know if a package .fc(x) compiles/works fine
on Fedora(x+n) without a rebuild?
Is the power of RPM , if fulfill all requires of package it works (rpm
-q --requires package)
For example Mosaic-2.7-0.3.b5.fc11.x86_64 still works on Fedora 23 ,
but is a FTBFS since F12 or 13 . So fail to build is not equivalent to
fail to run .
--
Sérgio M. B.
4:46 p.m.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA256
On 12/28/2015 01:30 AM, Sérgio Basto wrote:
On Dom, 2015-12-27 at 11:51 +0100, Antonio Trande wrote:
> On 12/27/2015 09:04 AM, Tomasz Torcz wrote:
>> On Sun, Dec 27, 2015 at 01:48:23AM +0100, Ralf Corsepius
>> wrote:
>>> On 12/27/2015 01:11 AM, Sérgio Basto wrote:
>>>
>>>>> Also, RPMFusion respects Fedora packaging guidelines or
>>>>> not?
>>>>
>>>> yes we do
>>>
>>> Aparently RPMFusion does not repect the FPG. Packages
>>> complying to the FPG are supposed to have been rebuilt for
>>> f23 and therefore to carry a package suffix of ".f23".
>>
>> Not really. There are often mass rebuild during Fedora
>> development, caused by various reasons: new GCC, change of
>> default compiler flags, hardening etc. But mass rebuild is not
>> required for every Fedora release.
>>
>
> At last someone comprehends what I meant. Beyond .fc suffix (that
> could create confusion during Fedora upgrade however), here
> you're saying that RPMFusion packages must not be audited
> periodically, even for months, it's enough they work.
>
> I ask again, how can we know if a package .fc(x) compiles/works
> fine on Fedora(x+n) without a rebuild?
Is the power of RPM , if fulfill all requires of package it works
(rpm -q --requires package)
For example Mosaic-2.7-0.3.b5.fc11.x86_64 still works on Fedora 23
, but is a FTBFS since F12 or 13 . So fail to build is not
equivalent to fail to run .
Works but surely does not respect anymore all Packaging guidelines of
Fedora.
- --
Antonio Trande
mailto: sagitter 'at' fedoraproject 'dot' org
http://fedoraos.wordpress.com/
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Sagitter
GPG Key: 0x565E653C
Check on https://keys.fedoraproject.org/
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2
iQEcBAEBCAAGBQJWgWdxAAoJEF5tK7VWXmU8C+EH/3u88qQ6FMAq0VMnyWmTasez
opEEZ/CnK/cKpkBRrOwOjtQiyxsrEIQRNHxTVRoqh37+XkyPNU27n5dNdJyY/1MW
p31LnTCmYPYQ+2eG8vw9CAtK/pyiTILviPmGF9FWYmiLdFbpYzh4+cKFjU5oo5KL
+RDgm3pcEvQjcE2GAC7N/vC+aZOxJndFkNVqYIO8SPBmvLq4y9F07xuXAQVI/Xuu
DV7mfgZR1msdWzskrkL2Ao2tUFS3km9pm9MvXhH5YJvVfczHW0TfVfBfkmlKzpoV
P6UVLvyfhXP4RJq71w8Qn1P6oCDydYR+EbgHF39C5KYFd0qlI5EYGlYfZ2EpOxg=
=DgFz
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
11:02 p.m.
* Antonio Trande [27/12/2015 11:51] :
I ask again, how can we know if a package .fc(x) compiles/works fine
on Fedora(x+n) without a rebuild?
You can't.
Fedora uses Koschei to ensure regular scratch rebuilds of its packages
but, to my knowledge, this isn't available to RPMFusion developers.
Emmanuel
10:28 a.m.
On Seg, 2015-12-28 at 17:46 +0100, Antonio Trande wrote:
On 12/28/2015 01:30 AM, Sérgio Basto wrote:
> On Dom, 2015-12-27 at 11:51 +0100, Antonio Trande wrote:
> > On 12/27/2015 09:04 AM, Tomasz Torcz wrote:
> > > On Sun, Dec 27, 2015 at 01:48:23AM +0100, Ralf Corsepius
> > > wrote:
> > > > On 12/27/2015 01:11 AM, Sérgio Basto wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > > Also, RPMFusion respects Fedora packaging guidelines or
> > > > > > not?
> > > > >
> > > > > yes we do
> > > >
> > > > Aparently RPMFusion does not repect the FPG. Packages
> > > > complying to the FPG are supposed to have been rebuilt for
> > > > f23 and therefore to carry a package suffix of ".f23".
> > >
> > > Not really. There are often mass rebuild during Fedora
> > > development, caused by various reasons: new GCC, change of
> > > default compiler flags, hardening etc. But mass rebuild is not
> > > required for every Fedora release.
> > >
> >
> > At last someone comprehends what I meant. Beyond .fc suffix (that
> > could create confusion during Fedora upgrade however), here
> > you're saying that RPMFusion packages must not be audited
> > periodically, even for months, it's enough they work.
> >
> > I ask again, how can we know if a package .fc(x) compiles/works
> > fine on Fedora(x+n) without a rebuild?
>
> Is the power of RPM , if fulfill all requires of package it works
> (rpm -q --requires package)
>
> For example Mosaic-2.7-0.3.b5.fc11.x86_64 still works on Fedora 23
> , but is a FTBFS since F12 or 13 . So fail to build is not
> equivalent to fail to run .
>
Works but surely does not respect anymore all Packaging guidelines of
Fedora.
What guideline that is not respected ?
--
Sérgio M. B.
5:51 p.m.
On 12/29/2015 11:28 AM, Sérgio Basto wrote:
>> For example Mosaic-2.7-0.3.b5.fc11.x86_64 still works on
Fedora 23
>> , but is a FTBFS since F12 or 13 . So fail to build is not
>> equivalent to fail to run .
>>
>
> Works but surely does not respect anymore all Packaging guidelines of
> Fedora.
What guideline that is not respected ?
- Fedora packages must be buildable (An FTBFS alone is a violation of
the FPG)
- fc12/13 were using different CFLAGS, paths and rpm. It's very likely
these packages are vulnerable and unusable.
- Fedora packages must carry the current release %dist.
That said, packages which FTBFS since F12 should be removed and abandoned.
Ralf
3:28 a.m.
On Ter, 2015-12-29 at 18:51 +0100, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
On 12/29/2015 11:28 AM, Sérgio Basto wrote:
> > > For example Mosaic-2.7-0.3.b5.fc11.x86_64 still works on Fedora
> > > 23
> > > , but is a FTBFS since F12 or 13 . So fail to build is not
> > > equivalent to fail to run .
> > >
> >
> > Works but surely does not respect anymore all Packaging
> > guidelines of
> > Fedora.
>
> What guideline that is not respected ?
- Fedora packages must be buildable (An FTBFS alone is a violation
of
the FPG)
- fc12/13 were using different CFLAGS, paths and rpm. It's very
likely
these packages are vulnerable and unusable.
- Fedora packages must carry the current release %dist.
That said, packages which FTBFS since F12 should be removed and
abandoned.
we enter in loop , you are right , but Mosaic was an example how to
know if works (rpm knows :) , Mosaic is not in RPMFusion anymore but
still works, and it is exception , Mosaic is one of the first browsers
ever (before Netscape) , yeah not the best example.
Ralf
--
Sérgio M. B.
10:58 a.m.
Hi,
...
- Fedora packages must carry the current release %dist.
just out of curiousity, where is this written?
grepping
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines
for "dist", I cannot find (but my eyes are tired ...) a mention that it
_must_ be even included?
I'm asking because of the situation with UFO:AI (that I happen to maintain
...) where the -data subpackage is shared across releases to save
resources, so how much does this exception violate the policies ...?
K.
--
Karel Volný
QE BaseOs/Daemons Team
Red Hat Czech, Brno
tel. +420 532294274
(RH: +420 532294111 ext. 8262074)
xmpp kavol(a)jabber.cz
:: "Never attribute to malice what can
:: easily be explained by stupidity."
11:09 a.m.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA256
On 12/31/2015 11:58 AM, Karel Volný wrote:
Hi,
...
> - Fedora packages must carry the current release %dist.
just out of curiousity, where is this written?
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:DistTag
grepping https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines for
"dist", I cannot find (but my eyes are tired ...) a mention that
it _must_ be even included?
I'm asking because of the situation with UFO:AI (that I happen to
maintain ...) where the -data subpackage is shared across releases
to save resources, so how much does this exception violate the
policies ...?
K.
- --
Antonio Trande
mailto: sagitter 'at' fedoraproject 'dot' org
http://fedoraos.wordpress.com/
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Sagitter
GPG Key: 0x565E653C
Check on https://keys.fedoraproject.org/
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2
iQEcBAEBCAAGBQJWhQz2AAoJEF5tK7VWXmU8ZsEH/3VjQeeX321Kv4dkGp0h/ec/
q2xEa8PcIA4Ns8vTbMl69m0jJAAbmlomiBxjbhLwzRkz9kNIzmLsptW/Tnao7CMZ
TAJllLrt3nd2E8Z3hwqiJbGkQ6fae92SMC0DHUXSDyWlA1Wz70jVeUjE3uneER6/
S/mbeOC7enXm2axPaX4ft9NUMU72wUVrziS9tfpqzNOkiXZe+PhG1iv1flAZL5hZ
0XzgZgsVXGVNdQ5jAwnQa4yFxoUrBznSykAACEZV1RQSTsJ9Ei6XtAK/p//reGFA
iloEe1NSD42AWEWPTA0c540bJxPxyMOElb97GiLrRJ34V24BatnwFzS9mVI+8Fs=
=+fD6
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
11:19 a.m.
* Antonio Trande [31/12/2015 12:09] :
>> - Fedora packages must carry the current release %dist.
>
> just out of curiousity, where is this written?
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:DistTag
Note that the NamingGuidelines makes mandatory the use of the %{?dist} tag in
your spec but not that Fedora packages must carry the current release %dist.
Emmanuel
12:05 p.m.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA256
Note that is not just a fc? vs fc23 issue; just for example:
1) Which RPMFusion packages use %license?
(http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:LicensingGuidelines#License_Text)
$ repoquery -f /usr/share/licenses/* --disablerepo=fedora,updates
- --enablerepo=rpmfusion-free-updates-testing
or
$ repoquery -f /usr/share/licenses/* --disablerepo=fedora,updates
- --enablerepo=rpmfusion-free
And which ones push a COPYING in a bad directory?
$ repoquery -f /usr/share/doc/*/COPYING* --disablerepo=fedora,updates
- --enablerepo=rpmfusion-free
2) Which RPMFusion packages are **rebuilt** by including hardening flags?
(http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Compiler_flags
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/Harden_All_Packages)
Just for example I chosen that most famous:
$ rpm -qa ffmpeg
ffmpeg-2.8.3-1.fc23.x86_64
(Good! It has been rebuilt for F23)
$ rpm -q --list ffmpeg | grep bin
/usr/bin/ffmpeg
/usr/bin/ffplay
/usr/bin/ffprobe
/usr/bin/ffserver
/usr/bin/qt-faststart
# checksec --file /usr/bin/ffmpeg
Ops! 'Partial RELRO' and 'No PIE' warnings
$ rpm -qa ffmpeg-compat
ffmpeg-compat-0.6.7-9.fc23.x86_64
(Ops! Still fc22 but okay, it's working)
$ rpm -q --list ffmpeg | grep COPYING
/usr/share/doc/ffmpeg/COPYING.GPLv2
/usr/share/doc/ffmpeg/COPYING.GPLv3
/usr/share/doc/ffmpeg/COPYING.LGPLv2.1
/usr/share/doc/ffmpeg/COPYING.LGPLv3
(Ops! Packaging rules violation)
$ rpm -q --list ffmpeg-compat | grep lib
/usr/lib64/libavcodec.so.52
/usr/lib64/libavcodec.so.52.72.2
/usr/lib64/libavdevice.so.52
/usr/lib64/libavdevice.so.52.2.0
/usr/lib64/libavfilter.so.1
/usr/lib64/libavfilter.so.1.19.0
/usr/lib64/libavformat.so.52
/usr/lib64/libavformat.so.52.64.2
/usr/lib64/libavutil.so.50
/usr/lib64/libavutil.so.50.15.1
/usr/lib64/libpostproc.so.51
/usr/lib64/libpostproc.so.51.2.0
/usr/lib64/libswscale.so.0
/usr/lib64/libswscale.so.0.11.0
# checksec --file /usr/lib64/libavcodec.so.52.72.2
Ops! 'Partial RELRO' warning
Therefore, am I exagerrating? Okay, but please don't tell me that ALL
RPMFusion packages respect packaging guidelines of Fedora.
- --
Antonio Trande
mailto: sagitter 'at' fedoraproject 'dot' org
http://fedoraos.wordpress.com/
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Sagitter
GPG Key: 0x565E653C
Check on https://keys.fedoraproject.org/
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2
iQEcBAEBCAAGBQJWhRoTAAoJEF5tK7VWXmU8iswH/0b1wEDOAlKW10xYt5rhwq2R
41irVEf/VMbB8wARDDWLXVxlWAeVy/NEcKcQfVaHYYets1zZyykyXXIgNej2kM2L
2SQBWiAfIzTncVO9nEkjlpKmfWLbDgzM2T75gq8ifC0yi7ZZttv3qmLyLDuLWF57
0oiLDEtlIF9MkWixxfCVnOVKq5w2vGE8GzimhYxVv7x6YHHEuGny4dMTL9K80rxv
RxJQ/lDIrQAuIc4+i/wW64g0sISIVYVPevxwFXTsprpALrorOCTTsapA0xUwq5rf
yMiSfOM6mcU2tq5ywg4YKivtaqlAXlg0+4wGAolzMUznI9C97K8/PZQpurZOpeY=
=1u9b
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
2:27 p.m.
Hi,
> ...
>> - Fedora packages must carry the current release %dist.
>
> just out of curiousity, where is this written?
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:DistTag
ah, wrong document examined ... thanks
K.
--
Karel Volný
QE BaseOs/Daemons Team
Red Hat Czech, Brno
tel. +420 532294274
(RH: +420 532294111 ext. 8262074)
xmpp kavol(a)jabber.cz
:: "Never attribute to malice what can
:: easily be explained by stupidity."
3037
days inactive
3046
days old
rpmfusion-developers@lists.rpmfusion.org
25 comments
8 participants
participants (8)
-
Antonio Trande -
Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski -
Emmanuel Seyman -
Karel Volný -
Nicolas Chauvet -
Ralf Corsepius -
Sérgio Basto -
Tomasz Torcz