https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=3335 Joachim Bauch <mail(a)joachim-bauch.de&gt; changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Blocks| |2 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. You are the assignee for the bug.

https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=3335 Nicolas Chauvet <kwizart(a)gmail.com&gt; changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|rpmfusion-package-review@rp |kwizart(a)gmail.com |mfusion.org | --- Comment #1 from Nicolas Chauvet <kwizart(a)gmail.com&gt; 2014-08-16 00:13:57 CEST --- Thx for your work. Taking the review. Do you know other dependencies that will make use of this package ? Do you have a RPM Fusion fas account ? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. You are the assignee for the bug.

https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=3335 --- Comment #3 from Nicolas Chauvet <kwizart(a)gmail.com&gt; 2014-08-23 11:56:23 CEST --- You should ask vlc upstream first before submitting any vlc plugin in distro. You will need to pass vlc review process at least to get vlc-libde265 into vlc Any plan for ffmpeg(/libav) to use this library ? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug.

https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=3335 --- Comment #5 from Joachim Bauch <mail(a)joachim-bauch.de&gt; 2014-09-18 09:38:56 CEST --- There was a new upstream release of libde265, so I updated the .spec file and the SRPM. New/updated downloads: Spec URL: http://www.joachim-bauch.de/static/fedora/libde265.spec SRPM URL: http://www.joachim-bauch.de/static/fedora/libde265-0.9-1.fc20.src.rpm The rpmlint output is the same as in comment #1. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug.

https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=3335 --- Comment #7 from Nicolas Chauvet <kwizart(a)gmail.com&gt; 2014-09-24 21:58:10 CEST --- What is the status wrt c#3 ? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug.

https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=3335 Richard <hobbes1069(a)gmail.com&gt; changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |hobbes1069(a)gmail.com Blocks|2 |3 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug.

https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=3335 paviluf(a)yahoo.fr changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |paviluf(a)yahoo.fr --- Comment #10 from paviluf(a)yahoo.fr 2015-11-09 18:50:05 CET --- Is this in Fedora 23 or is it planned ? Thank you -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug.

https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=3335 --- Comment #12 from Richard <hobbes1069(a)gmail.com&gt; 2015-11-09 21:07:32 CET --- I can take the review once the SRPM is updated to the latest version. Some feedback on the spec file: 1. The project URL tag should probably be: http://www.libde265.org/ 2. Is renaming the executables necessary? Do they conflict with another package? 3. While the binaries are examples, if they're useful enough, why put them in a -examples subpackage? Along the same lines, should libde265 provide packages similar in structure to x264/x265? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug.

https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=3335 --- Comment #14 from paviluf(a)yahoo.fr 2016-03-07 16:52:39 CET --- Can we have an update on this please ? Thanks ! -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug.

https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=3335 --- Comment #16 from paviluf(a)yahoo.fr 2016-04-27 01:17:04 CEST --- I tried to contact Joachim Bauch by mail but he didn't answer. The links he provide for Spec and SRPM are dead. So I think he won't make this happen. It will be great if someone skilled can take care of this because h265 will be more and more common as time pass. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug.

https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=3335 --- Comment #18 from Joachim Bauch <mail(a)joachim-bauch.de&gt; 2016-04-27 10:26:56 CEST --- @paviluf: sorry for the lack of response, I was quite busy recently. The download links are working again and I'll try to find some time in the next days to update to the latest version of libde265. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug.

https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=3335 --- Comment #20 from paviluf(a)yahoo.fr 2016-05-12 16:24:40 CEST --- (In reply to comment #18) Hello Joachim, Don't forget to take into account the Richard review : https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=3335#c12 Thanks ! -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug.

https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=3335 --- Comment #22 from Joachim Bauch <mail(a)joachim-bauch.de&gt; 2016-05-31 22:56:23 CEST --- Finally got some time to setup a Fedora box to update the packaging :-) Please find the updated downloads here: Spec: https://www.joachim-bauch.de/static/fedora/libde265.spec SRPM: https://www.joachim-bauch.de/static/fedora/libde265-1.0.2-1.fc23.src.rpm As you can see I updated to the latest upstream release and packaged on Fedora Core 23. Regarding the comments from Richard in c#12: 1. The url has been changed. 2. While renaming the executables is not really necessary I wanted to match the Fedora packaging the others we already have for Debian and Ubuntu. 3. The examples should be in a separate package as they have additional dependencies (like Qt and libswscale) that are not necessary for the base library. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug.

https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=3335 Richard <hobbes1069(a)gmail.com&gt; changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- AssignedTo|kwizart(a)gmail.com |hobbes1069(a)gmail.com --- Comment #24 from Richard <hobbes1069(a)gmail.com&gt; 2016-06-09 15:34:00 CEST --- Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed Issues: ======= - If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the license(s) for the package is included in %license. Note: License file COPYING is not marked as %license See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/LicensingGuidelines#License_Text - Getopt files are licensed BSD not GPL but only appear to be used in the enc and dec binaries. Decoder package will need to be licensed: "GPLv3+ and BSD" ===== MUST items ===== C/C++: [x]: Package does not contain kernel modules. [x]: Package contains no static executables. [x]: Header files in -devel subpackage, if present. [x]: ldconfig called in %post and %postun if required. [x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la) [x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs. [x]: Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present. Generic: [x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging Guidelines. [x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: "GPL (v3.1)", "GPL (v3 or later)", "Unknown or generated", "BSD (4 clause)", "MIT/X11 (BSD like)", "LGPL (v3 or later)", "GPL (unversioned/unknown version)", "GPL (v2 or later)", "LGPL (v2.1 or later)". 21 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/build/fedora-review/libde265/licensecheck.txt [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise. [x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception. [x]: Changelog in prescribed format. [x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content. [-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application. [x]: Development files must be in a -devel package [x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime. [x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory names). [x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. [x]: Package does not generate any conflict. [x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target. [-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and Provides are present. [-]: Requires correct, justified where necessary. [x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English. [-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need. [x]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise. [x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag. [-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Documentation size is 71680 bytes in 4 files. [x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines [x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one supported primary architecture. [x]: Package installs properly. [x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces. Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. [x]: Package must own all directories that it creates. [x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages. [x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines. [x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT [x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the beginning of %install. [x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time. [x]: Dist tag is present. [x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files. [x]: Permissions on files are set properly. [x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install DESTDIR=... doesn't work. [x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters. [x]: Package does not use a name that already exists. [x]: Package is not relocatable. [x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL. [x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format %{name}.spec. [x]: File names are valid UTF-8. [x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local ===== SHOULD items ===== Generic: [x]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it. [x]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments). [x]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in libde265-debuginfo [?]: Package functions as described. [x]: Latest version is packaged. [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [x]: Scriptlets must be sane, if used. [-]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains translations for supported Non-English languages, if available. [?]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. [-]: %check is present and all tests pass. [x]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files. [x]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock. [x]: Buildroot is not present [x]: Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) [x]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin. [x]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file [x]: Uses parallel make %{?_smp_mflags} macro. [x]: The placement of pkgconfig(.pc) files are correct. [x]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag [x]: SourceX is a working URL. [x]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified. ===== EXTRA items ===== Generic: [x]: Rpmlint is run on debuginfo package(s). Note: No rpmlint messages. [x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages. Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [x]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package is arched. [x]: Package should not use obsolete m4 macros Rpmlint ------- Checking: libde265-1.0.2-1.fc23.x86_64.rpm libde265-devel-1.0.2-1.fc23.x86_64.rpm libde265-examples-1.0.2-1.fc23.x86_64.rpm libde265-debuginfo-1.0.2-1.fc23.x86_64.rpm libde265-1.0.2-1.fc23.src.rpm libde265.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) codec -> codex, code, codes libde265.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US codec -> codex, code, codes libde265-devel.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) codec -> codex, code, codes libde265-devel.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US codec -> codex, code, codes libde265-devel.x86_64: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib libde265-examples.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) codec -> codex, code, codes libde265-examples.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US codec -> codex, code, codes libde265-examples.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary libde265-sherlock265 libde265-examples.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary libde265-dec265 libde265.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) codec -> codex, code, codes libde265.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US codec -> codex, code, codes libde265.src: W: invalid-url Source0: https://github.com/strukturag/libde265/releases/download/v1.0.2/libde265-... HTTP Error 403: Forbidden 5 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 12 warnings. Rpmlint (debuginfo) ------------------- Checking: libde265-debuginfo-1.0.2-1.fc23.x86_64.rpm 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- sh: /usr/bin/python: No such file or directory libde265-examples.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary libde265-dec265 libde265-examples.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary libde265-sherlock265 libde265-devel.x86_64: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib 4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 3 warnings. Requires -------- libde265 (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /sbin/ldconfig libc.so.6()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.0)(64bit) libm.so.6()(64bit) libpthread.so.0()(64bit) libstdc++.so.6()(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3)(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3.8)(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH) libde265-examples (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): libQtCore.so.4()(64bit) libQtGui.so.4()(64bit) libSDL-1.2.so.0()(64bit) libc.so.6()(64bit) libde265(x86-64) libde265.so.0()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.0)(64bit) libm.so.6()(64bit) libpthread.so.0()(64bit) libstdc++.so.6()(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3)(64bit) libswscale.so.3()(64bit) libswscale.so.3(LIBSWSCALE_3)(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH) libde265-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /usr/bin/pkg-config libde265(x86-64) libde265.so.0()(64bit) libde265-debuginfo (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): Provides -------- libde265: libde265 libde265(x86-64) libde265.so.0()(64bit) libde265-examples: libde265-examples libde265-examples(x86-64) libde265-devel: libde265-devel libde265-devel(x86-64) pkgconfig(libde265) libde265-debuginfo: libde265-debuginfo libde265-debuginfo(x86-64) Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/strukturag/libde265/releases/download/v1.0.2/libde265-... : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : eaa0348839c2935dd90647d72c6dd4a043e36361cb3c33d2b04df10fbcebd3cb CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : eaa0348839c2935dd90647d72c6dd4a043e36361cb3c33d2b04df10fbcebd3cb Generated by fedora-review 0.6.1 (f03e4e7) last change: 2016-05-02 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -r -n /home/build/rpmbuild/libde265/SRPMS/libde265-1.0.2-1.fc23.src.rpm -m fedora-23-x86_64-rpmfusion_free Buildroot used: fedora-23-x86_64 Active plugins: Generic, Shell-api, C/C++ Disabled plugins: Java, Python, fonts, SugarActivity, Ocaml, Perl, Haskell, R, PHP Disabled flags: EXARCH, DISTTAG, EPEL5, BATCH, EPEL6 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug.

https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=3335 --- Comment #26 from Joachim Bauch <mail(a)joachim-bauch.de&gt; 2016-06-09 16:02:41 CEST --- Richard, thanks for the detailed review. I'll address the two issues later today. Is there anything else I need to do to complete this? The 403 returned from GitHub in the source check is a known issue in rpmlint: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpmlint/issues/71 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug.

https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=3335 --- Comment #28 from Joachim Bauch <mail(a)joachim-bauch.de&gt; 2016-06-09 22:15:14 CEST --- (In reply to comment #27) That file is not the same as the one I referenced in my spec file. Mine for example already contains the "configure" script and can be built without needing any bootstrapping process (i.e. autoconf/automake) - this is required with the file you referenced (which is just an export of the git tag). We use the file referenced by my spec file for all other packages, so I would like to keep it the same for rpmfusion if possible. I updated the spec file / SRPM with the two issues from comment #24 addressed: Spec: https://www.joachim-bauch.de/static/fedora/libde265.spec SRPM: https://www.joachim-bauch.de/static/fedora/libde265-1.0.2-1.fc23.src.rpm Do you have any best practices / central repository for maintaining spec files or should I just put it somewhere on GitHub? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug.

https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=3335 --- Comment #30 from Richard <hobbes1069(a)gmail.com&gt; 2016-06-10 20:45:14 CEST --- Crazy idea... Presuming you're the one generating the build files, what about doing this: - Use the github generated tarball (my link) - Run autoconf from a copy of the tarball - Create a diff/patch between the two - Apply the patch in %prep -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug.

https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=3335 --- Comment #32 from Richard <hobbes1069(a)gmail.com&gt; 2016-06-12 14:45:52 CEST --- (In reply to comment #31) Yeah, not a big deal. So I think you're package is ready but we still need to take care of sponsoring. I assume since you need a sponsor that you are not already a packager on Fedora? It's possible to get sponsored in RPM Fusion first but it's not ideal. Do you have any other packages you'd like to submit? Preferably something that can go in Fedora[1]? Also it would be helpful to do some unofficial package reviews[2] to show your understanding of the packaging guidelines. [1] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/How_to_get_sponsored_into_the_packager_gro... [2] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/How_to_get_sponsored_into_the_packager_gro... -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug.

https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=3335 --- Comment #34 from Joachim Bauch <mail(a)joachim-bauch.de&gt; 2016-06-13 23:52:02 CEST --- (In reply to comment #33) Thanks, I already had an account there (user "fancycode") and just applied for the cvsextras group. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug.

https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=3335 --- Comment #36 from Joachim Bauch <mail(a)joachim-bauch.de&gt; 2016-06-23 10:38:54 CEST --- (In reply to comment #35) replaced by RF_ACCEPT in this bug (@Richard: would you be the one to do that if everything is ok?). I can then request a directory in the repository and once that is granted import the package there. @Nicolas: thanks for sponsoring me, is the above correct? [1] http://rpmfusion.org/Contributors#Your_package_gets_approved -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug.

https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=3335 --- Comment #38 from paviluf(a)yahoo.fr 2016-06-24 10:33:43 CEST --- After libde265 is available will we need to make these other packages gstreamer1.0-libde265 gstreamer0.10-libde265 ? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug.

https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=3335 --- Comment #40 from Joachim Bauch <mail(a)joachim-bauch.de&gt; 2016-07-18 22:46:04 CEST --- (In reply to comment #39) Thanks for creating the module in the repository. Does it take some time until I'm able to clone it from there with my user? I tried as described in "http://rpmfusion.org/Contributors#Import_your_package" but always get the following error: ----- $ rfpkg clone free/libde265 Cloning into 'libde265'... Permission denied (publickey). fatal: Could not read from remote repository. Please make sure you have the correct access rights and the repository exists. ----- I'm using the same ssh key I stored in my account on "fas.rpmfusion.org" (just double-checked). Also cloning manually using "git clone ssh://pkgs.rpmfusion.org/free/libde265.git" fails with the same error. An anonymous clone works just fine. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug.

https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=3335 --- Comment #42 from Joachim Bauch <mail(a)joachim-bauch.de&gt; 2016-07-18 23:15:28 CEST --- (In reply to comment #41) That didn't help, but I just found the issue :-) My FAS username is different from my local username, so the login failed. Looks like this is different from other sites like GitHub/GitLab that authenticate by SSH key only - might be worth adding to the wiki (which I would do but this seems need yet another account which I can't create). Also worked for me now, thanks. $ rfpkg --user my-fas-username clone free/libde265 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug.

https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=3335 --- Comment #44 from Joachim Bauch <mail(a)joachim-bauch.de&gt; 2016-07-19 21:02:25 CEST --- Builds for f23/f24 are ready now. f23: http://koji.rpmfusion.org/koji/buildinfo?buildID=1138 f24: http://koji.rpmfusion.org/koji/buildinfo?buildID=1137 Still waiting for master (rawhide) which now has dependency problems similar to those from yesterday... I will comment and close once that also built successfully. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug.

https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=3335 --- Comment #46 from Nicolas Chauvet <kwizart(a)gmail.com&gt; 2016-07-19 23:42:52 CEST --- DEBUG util.py:421: Error: Package: gdal-libs-2.1.0-6.fc25.x86_64 (build) DEBUG util.py:421: Requires: libpoppler.so.60()(64bit) Is there a fedora build that would fix this ? Or should we wait for a rebuild or a package fix ? Thx -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug.

https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=3335 --- Comment #48 from Joachim Bauch <mail(a)joachim-bauch.de&gt; 2016-07-19 23:47:45 CEST --- (In reply to comment #46) I don't know what "gdal-libs" is, but "libpoppler" is some PDF rendering library - both are not used by libde265, so I don't know what I could do to fix this... -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug.

https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=3335 --- Comment #50 from Joachim Bauch <mail(a)joachim-bauch.de&gt; 2016-07-20 22:18:27 CEST --- (In reply to comment #49) I can reproduce the error with mock locally, it looks like the dependency to "libgdal" is being pulled through "opencv-core" which comes from one of the FFmpeg dependencies. The build dependencies of libde265 are the same for all distributions and the problem doesn't occur for f23 or f24, only for rawhide. There is a newer version of "gdal" (http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/buildinfo?buildID=781440) that mentions a "Rebuild for poppler-0.45.0" in 2.1.0-7, so I'm assuming that fixes the issue (it's broken with 2.1.0-6). Again, there is nothing I can do but wait for the packages to be updated in the build system and retry my build whenever that happens. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug.

https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=3335 --- Comment #52 from paviluf(a)yahoo.fr 2016-07-22 01:57:15 CEST --- That's awesome ! Thank you ! Now that libde265 is available do we need to make these other packages like gstreamer1.0-libde265 gstreamer0.10-libde265 in order to use it ? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug.