On Sat, Nov 28, 2015 at 2:32 PM, Sérgio Basto <sergio(a)serjux.com&gt; wrote: > F22: > sox-14.4.2rc2-1.fc22 > sox 14.4.2-3.fc23 > F23: > sox-plugins-freeworld-14.4.1-4.fc22.src.rpm > sox-plugins-nonfree-14.4.1-4.fc22.src.rpm sox 14.4.2 (non rc) is in updates-testing for both f22 & f23.

I have requested builds of the plugin packages on RPM Fusion and I believe they are now built as Nicolas removed the blocks on 11/27 for 3821. 

Thanks, Richard 

2015-11-28 21:32 GMT+01:00 Sérgio Basto <sergio(a)serjux.com&gt;: > Need updates :   >  F21: > sonic-visualiser-2.4.1-2.fc21.src.rpm > sonic-visualiser-freeworld-2.1-2.fc21.src.rpm > F22: > sonic-visualiser-2.4.1-2.fc22.src.rpm > sonic-visualiser-freeworld-2.1-2.fc22.src.rpm > F23: > sonic-visualiser-2.4.1-4.fc23.src.rpm > sonic-visualiser-freeworld-2.1-2.fc22.src.rpm Sorry, I don't understand all this. What question are you trying to answear ? Because the question is not:" is the package rebuild for f23" ? but instead: Is the package at the correct version in f23 (in a first step). If already at the correct version, can we keep the same build as f22 or rebuilt it for f23 (the reason for the rebuild is because it's c++ and/or there is a soname bump for it's dependencies). if you want me do to something, I need a "list " for free section and the list for the nonfree section.

2015-11-29 6:03 GMT+01:00 Sérgio Basto <sergio(a)serjux.com&gt;: > Hi,  > > On Sáb, 2015-11-28 at 23:02 +0100, Nicolas Chauvet wrote: > > > > > > 2015-11-28 21:32 GMT+01:00 Sérgio Basto <sergio(a)serjux.com&gt;: > > > Need updates : > >   > > >  F21: > > > sonic-visualiser-2.4.1-2.fc21.src.rpm > > > sonic-visualiser-freeworld-2.1-2.fc21.src.rpm > > > F22: > > > sonic-visualiser-2.4.1-2.fc22.src.rpm > > > sonic-visualiser-freeworld-2.1-2.fc22.src.rpm > > > F23: > > > sonic-visualiser-2.4.1-4.fc23.src.rpm > > > sonic-visualiser-freeworld-2.1-2.fc22.src.rpm > > Sorry, I don't understand all this. > > What question are you trying to answear ? > > > > Because the question is not:" is the package rebuild for f23" ? > but > > instead: > > Is the package at the correct version in f23 (in a first step). > > If already at the correct version, can we keep the same build as > f22 > > or rebuilt it for f23 (the reason for the rebuild is because it's > c++ > > and/or there is a soname bump for it's dependencies). > > > > if you want me do to something, I need a "list " for free section > and > > the list for the nonfree section. > > This is a comprehensive list of all freeworld packages that are in > Rpmfusion and the counter-part in Fedora. I also sent the corrects > cases to show that I reviewed *all* freeworld packages. > > I checked F23 and also F21 and F22 , because in some cases I don't > know > if it need updates, for example k3b . > > > Mini manual (for maintainers) to update his packages : > > For updates F22 and F23 the workflow is as follow: > - The maintainer which want update his package, clone his package > from > github [1], modify in his account what wants and when finish block > tracker bug #3820, to sync with git preview.  > - Provenpackager will update to git preview and move to the tracker > bug > #3821 to build and publish .    > > Please open a bug report, don't need to write more than name of the > package and location of modifications, is just to use the "blocks" > of > bugzilla. > Of course this is temporary, until infra support acls ...  > > I will send a new list of the freeworld packages soon .  >    > [1] https://github.com/rpmfusion/yourpackage > > > Best regards, > -- > Sérgio M. B. > Sorry this is not the way to go. we use bugzilla for this kind of request to maintainers.

If the package isn't updated in time, I will need to kick it out from the f23 ga repository.

On 29/11/15 18:21, Sérgio Basto wrote: > Hi, > > On Dom, 2015-11-29 at 12:11 +0100, Nicolas Chauvet wrote: > > > > > > 2015-11-29 6:03 GMT+01:00 Sérgio Basto <sergio(a)serjux.com&gt;: > > > Hi, > > > > > > On Sáb, 2015-11-28 at 23:02 +0100, Nicolas Chauvet wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > 2015-11-28 21:32 GMT+01:00 Sérgio Basto <sergio(a)serjux.com&gt;: > > > > > Need updates : > > > > > > > > >   F21: > > > > > sonic-visualiser-2.4.1-2.fc21.src.rpm > > > > > sonic-visualiser-freeworld-2.1-2.fc21.src.rpm > > > > > F22: > > > > > sonic-visualiser-2.4.1-2.fc22.src.rpm > > > > > sonic-visualiser-freeworld-2.1-2.fc22.src.rpm > > > > > F23: > > > > > sonic-visualiser-2.4.1-4.fc23.src.rpm > > > > > sonic-visualiser-freeworld-2.1-2.fc22.src.rpm > > > > Sorry, I don't understand all this. > > > > What question are you trying to answear ? > > > > > > > > Because the question is not:" is the package rebuild for f23" > > > > ? > > > but > > > > instead: > > > > Is the package at the correct version in f23 (in a first > > > > step). > > > > If already at the correct version, can we keep the same build > > > > as > > > f22 > > > > or rebuilt it for f23 (the reason for the rebuild is because > > > > it's > > > c++ > > > > and/or there is a soname bump for it's dependencies). > > > > > > > > if you want me do to something, I need a "list " for free > > > > section > > > and > > > > the list for the nonfree section. > > > > > > This is a comprehensive list of all freeworld packages that are > > > in > > > Rpmfusion and the counter-part in Fedora. I also sent the > > > corrects > > > cases to show that I reviewed *all* freeworld packages. > > > > > > I checked F23 and also F21 and F22 , because in some cases I > > > don't > > > know > > > if it need updates, for example k3b . > > > > > > > > > Mini manual (for maintainers) to update his packages : > > > > > > For updates F22 and F23 the workflow is as follow: > > > - The maintainer which want update his package, clone his > > > package > > > from > > > github [1], modify in his account what wants and when finish > > > block > > > tracker bug #3820, to sync with git preview. > > > - Provenpackager will update to git preview and move to the > > > tracker > > > bug > > > #3821 to build and publish . > > > > > > Please open a bug report, don't need to write more than name of > > > the > > > package and location of modifications, is just to use the > > > "blocks" > > > of > > > bugzilla. > > > Of course this is temporary, until infra support acls ... > > > > > > I will send a new list of the freeworld packages soon . > > > > > > [1] https://github.com/rpmfusion/yourpackage > > > > > > > > > Best regards, > > > -- > > > Sérgio M. B. > > > > > Sorry this is not the way to go. we use bugzilla for this kind of > > request to maintainers. > > First I'm exposing the data collected, second explains how we can > update it, 3rd analyze what remains wrong, 4th open bug reports > against > components that are wrong and add "the" mini manual (for > maintainers) , > 5th if someone want to fix it but is not the package maintainer, > reports in same bug the patch or solutions, 6th if maintainer lacks > of > response or the patch is trivial, provenpackage can commit it and > add > the number of the bug report on the changelog of spec . > > I sending new list of "all" freeworld packages , also we have to > analyze multilibs in some packages , so it is (again) the > comprehensive > list but improved and corrected . > About split nonfree , we only have sox-plugins-nonfree and xmms2- > nonfree but both also they have a free part. > > > For complete the report, we have: > > - libtunepimp-extras-freeworld-0.5.3-13.fc22.src.rpm, libtunepimp > is > retired in rawhide (f24) [1] > > - qtractor-freeworld-0.5.7-1.fc19.src.rpm have already been kicked > out > :) but is active in Fedora [2]. > My bad, I was thinking of retiring this in rpmfusion in any case. However I have still been keeping the (no mp3) patch up to date in Fedora. Haven't bumped this in quite a while.