https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2101 --- Comment #1 from Jeremy Newton <alexjnewt(a)hotmail.com&gt; 2012-01-06 18:55:03 CET --- A newer version is out (1.8.0.1054) and after looking into requirements, the latest version seems to depend on SFML and SOIL to build: failing to build otherwise. I believe it tries to build the two dependencies to bundle it, such as what dolphin does, but fails in the process. Once Fedora adopts these packages, I will look more sincerely into this. As well it seems ambiguous on whether this is more stable/preferable than 1.8.0.1001 or 1.8.0.1042, but as I can't build it without SFML-devel and SOIL-devel and would rather wait until Fedora adopts the two requirements (rather than building from source) before testing myself. Here's a re-paste of the two package requests of the two dependencies mentioned above for ease of reference: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=759057 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=759059 Also, I updated the SPEC file (same link as the original post) to fix the desktop file error using sed, as gfceu's spec file seems to fix the desktop in the same way. I'm taking another shot at building 1.8.0.1042 and will post back here later today with results. -- 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=2101 Andrea Musuruane <musuruan(a)gmail.com&gt; changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |musuruan(a)gmail.com Blocks| |2, 30 --- Comment #3 from Andrea Musuruane <musuruan(a)gmail.com&gt; 2012-01-07 15:05:32 CET --- Jeremy, this review request must block the tracker bug: RF_NEW (bug #2). This way, other contributors can easily check for packages that need reviewing. Moreover, because you are seeking a sponsor you must also be set to block the tracker bug: NEEDSPONSORS (bug #30). Thus, some potential sponsors will look at the NEEDSPONSORS bug to find packages to review. The only allowed sponsors in RPM Fusion are Fedora sponsors. I did these for you for this bug and #2098. -- 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=2101 --- Comment #5 from Jeremy Newton <alexjnewt(a)hotmail.com&gt; 2012-01-07 21:44:07 CET --- Thanks a lot for your help! I've make as many changes as I can (and re-uploaded it) but I still have some questions/issues if you or some else can help: -Just for clarification, is the group tag optional or unnecessary? -I guess I should submit fex for packaging in fedora? Assuming I don't enable rar, I'm pretty sure it should be LGPL with no fedora issues. -Using %cmake doesn't seem to work for some odd reason; it gets to 72% and exits with an "error 2/error: Bad exit status". I can't seem to find the issue though, as it doesn't seem to appear in the output that I can see. I would upload the log but I don't know how to make/find it. Also a note on the source link: I guess do to this being a pre-release, the team doesn't seem to be using a standard download link, plus they seem to be changing their organization version to version, but I have made use of name and version where ever I could. -- 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=2101 --- Comment #6 from Andrea Musuruane <musuruan(a)gmail.com&gt; 2012-01-08 13:31:02 CET --- Every time you modify the package you have to include in the post: a) the URL of the updated spec file b) the URL of the updated SRPM (the release tag must be increased) (In reply to comment #5) The group tag is deprecated in Fedora. Yes and you'll have to patch vbam to use the system fex instead of the bundled one. The root cause must be found. Without watching the compile output you cannot see the CFLAGS used and I assure you they are not the Fedora optflags :( I even tried to do what's in the debian rules: %cmake . -DCMAKE_C_FLAGS="$(CFLAGS)" \ -DCMAKE_LD_FLAGS="$(LDFLAGS)" \ -DCMAKE_CXX_FLAGS="$(CXXFLAGS)" But CFLAGS (and not CCFLAGS as you set in the SPEC) and CXXFLAGS are not used. It is always compiled with "-O3 -Wall -fPIC" I tried to use the %cmake macro and I removed the %{?_smp_mflags} (a possible cause of problems). I got the following error at 25%: Linking CXX shared library libfex.so /usr/bin/cmake -E cmake_link_script CMakeFiles/fex.dir/link.txt --verbose=1 /usr/lib64/ccache/c++ -fPIC -O3 -Wall -Wl,-z,relro -shared -Wl,-soname,libfex.so -o libfex.so CMakeFiles/fex.dir/fex/7z_C/7zAlloc.c.o CMakeFiles/fex.dir/fex/7z_C/7zBuf.c.o CMakeFiles/fex.dir/fex/7z_C/7zCrc.c.o CMakeFiles/fex.dir/fex/7z_C/7zCrcOpt.c.o CMakeFiles/fex.dir/fex/7z_C/7zDecode.c.o CMakeFiles/fex.dir/fex/7z_C/7zExtract.c.o CMakeFiles/fex.dir/fex/7z_C/7zHeader.c.o CMakeFiles/fex.dir/fex/7z_C/7zIn.c.o CMakeFiles/fex.dir/fex/7z_C/7zItem.c.o CMakeFiles/fex.dir/fex/7z_C/7zStream.c.o CMakeFiles/fex.dir/fex/7z_C/Bcj2.c.o CMakeFiles/fex.dir/fex/7z_C/Bra.c.o CMakeFiles/fex.dir/fex/7z_C/Bra86.c.o CMakeFiles/fex.dir/fex/7z_C/CpuArch.c.o CMakeFiles/fex.dir/fex/7z_C/LzmaDec.c.o CMakeFiles/fex.dir/fex/7z_C/Lzma2Dec.c.o CMakeFiles/fex.dir/fex/fex/Binary_Extractor.cpp.o CMakeFiles/fex.dir/fex/fex/blargg_common.cpp.o CMakeFiles/fex.dir/fex/fex/blargg_errors.cpp.o CMakeFiles/fex.dir/fex/fex/Data_Reader.cpp.o CMakeFiles/fex.dir/fex/fex/fex.cpp.o CMakeFiles/fex.dir/fex/fex/File_Extractor.cpp.o CMakeFiles/fex.dir/fex/fex/Gzip_Extractor.cpp.o CMakeFiles/fex.dir/fex/fex/Gzip_Reader.cpp.o CMakeFiles/fex.dir/fex/fex/Rar_Extractor.cpp.o CMakeFiles/fex.dir/fex/fex/Zip7_Extractor.cpp.o CMakeFiles/fex.dir/fex/fex/Zip_Extractor.cpp.o CMakeFiles/fex.dir/fex/fex/Zlib_Inflater.cpp.o CMakeFiles/fex.dir/fex/7z_C/7zIn.c.o:(.data+0x0): multiple definition of `k7zSignature' CMakeFiles/fex.dir/fex/7z_C/7zHeader.c.o:(.data+0x0): first defined here CMakeFiles/fex.dir/fex/7z_C/7zItem.c.o: In function `SzCoderInfo_Init': 7zItem.c:(.text+0x0): multiple definition of `SzCoderInfo_Init' CMakeFiles/fex.dir/fex/7z_C/7zIn.c.o:7zIn.c:(.text+0x0): first defined here CMakeFiles/fex.dir/fex/7z_C/7zItem.c.o: In function `SzCoderInfo_Free': 7zItem.c:(.text+0x10): multiple definition of `SzCoderInfo_Free' CMakeFiles/fex.dir/fex/7z_C/7zIn.c.o:7zIn.c:(.text+0x10): first defined here CMakeFiles/fex.dir/fex/7z_C/7zItem.c.o: In function `SzFolder_Init': 7zItem.c:(.text+0x30): multiple definition of `SzFolder_Init' CMakeFiles/fex.dir/fex/7z_C/7zIn.c.o:7zIn.c:(.text+0x30): first defined here CMakeFiles/fex.dir/fex/7z_C/7zItem.c.o: In function `SzFolder_GetNumOutStreams': 7zItem.c:(.text+0x80): multiple definition of `SzFolder_GetNumOutStreams' CMakeFiles/fex.dir/fex/7z_C/7zIn.c.o:7zIn.c:(.text+0x100): first defined here CMakeFiles/fex.dir/fex/7z_C/7zItem.c.o: In function `SzFolder_FindBindPairForInStream': 7zItem.c:(.text+0xb0): multiple definition of `SzFolder_FindBindPairForInStream' CMakeFiles/fex.dir/fex/7z_C/7zIn.c.o:7zIn.c:(.text+0x130): first defined here CMakeFiles/fex.dir/fex/7z_C/7zItem.c.o: In function `SzFolder_GetUnpackSize': 7zItem.c:(.text+0x100): multiple definition of `SzFolder_GetUnpackSize' CMakeFiles/fex.dir/fex/7z_C/7zIn.c.o:7zIn.c:(.text+0x1d0): first defined here CMakeFiles/fex.dir/fex/7z_C/7zItem.c.o: In function `SzFile_Init': 7zItem.c:(.text+0x180): multiple definition of `SzFile_Init' CMakeFiles/fex.dir/fex/7z_C/7zIn.c.o:7zIn.c:(.text+0x230): first defined here CMakeFiles/fex.dir/fex/7z_C/7zItem.c.o: In function `SzAr_Init': 7zItem.c:(.text+0x1a0): multiple definition of `SzAr_Init' CMakeFiles/fex.dir/fex/7z_C/7zIn.c.o:7zIn.c:(.text+0x250): first defined here CMakeFiles/fex.dir/fex/7z_C/7zItem.c.o: In function `SzAr_Free': 7zItem.c:(.text+0x1e0): multiple definition of `SzAr_Free' CMakeFiles/fex.dir/fex/7z_C/7zIn.c.o:7zIn.c:(.text+0x290): first defined here collect2: ld returned 1 exit status make[2]: *** [libfex.so] Error 1 make[2]: Leaving directory `/home/andrea/rpmbuild/BUILD/vbam-1.8.0.1001' make[1]: *** [CMakeFiles/fex.dir/all] Error 2 make[1]: Leaving directory `/home/andrea/rpmbuild/BUILD/vbam-1.8.0.1001' make: *** [all] Error 2 errore: Stato d'uscita errato da /var/tmp/rpm-tmp.qxfGk3 (%build) These problems must be patched (no CFLAGS used and this error). Try to work with upstream to solve this issues. It is fine the way you did. *You can fix the desktop file using desktop-file-install (thus it will also validate the file in a single command). E.g: desktop-file-install \ --remove-category Application \ --dir %{buildroot}%{_datadir}/applications \ %{name}.desktop Check desktop-file-install options: man desktop-file-install You can also look for other examples in Fedora git or RPM Fusion cvs. * Do not use %{__install} or other program macros. Simply use install. It is better for readability. * You are already in %{_builddir}/%{buildsubdir}, so you can strip it install -p -D -m 0644 debian/%{name}.1 %{buildroot}/%{_mandir}/man1/%{name}.1 * There is no need for this one: ln -s %{name}.1.gz %{buildroot}/%{_mandir}/man1/g%{name}.1.gz The man page is of vbam not of gvbam. * Use this syntax for man pages: %{_mandir}/man1/%{name}.1* Thus you don't have to check if they are compressed or not. * The %find_lang macro is usually called at the end of %install for obvious reasons. * A more compact form for this: %{_datadir}/icons/hicolor/16x16/apps/%{name}.png %{_datadir}/icons/hicolor/22x22/apps/%{name}.png %{_datadir}/icons/hicolor/24x24/apps/%{name}.png %{_datadir}/icons/hicolor/32x32/apps/%{name}.png %{_datadir}/icons/hicolor/scalable/apps/%{name}.svg is the following: %{_datadir}/icons/hicolor/*/apps/%{name}.* This is just for your knowledge. It is up to you to decide what to use. You might prefer one form or the other. * If you use rpmlint on the debug package you'll get: $ rpmlint -i vbam-debuginfo-1.8.0.1001-1.fc16.x86_64.rpm vbam-debuginfo.x86_64: E: debuginfo-without-sources This debuginfo package appears to contain debug symbols but no source files. This is often a sign of binaries being unexpectedly stripped too early during the build, or being compiled without compiler debug flags (which again often is a sign of distro's default compiler flags ignored which might have security consequences), or other compiler flags which result in rpmbuild's debuginfo extraction not working as expected. Verify that the binaries are not unexpectedly stripped and that the intended compiler flags are used. This is a problem and it must be solved. * Use %{buildroot} and %{optflags} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT and $RPM_OPT_FLAGS. Do not mix macro styles: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Using_.25.7Bbuildroot... * You should generate two different packages one for gtk and the other for sdl - so the user will choose the one it prefers. -- 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=2101 Julian Sikorski <belegdol(a)gmail.com&gt; changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |belegdol(a)gmail.com --- Comment #8 from Julian Sikorski <belegdol(a)gmail.com&gt; 2012-01-13 22:14:00 CET --- FYI, the reviews of SOIL and SFML have finished, the packages are in -testing now. -- 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=2101 --- Comment #10 from Jeremy Newton <alexjnewt(a)hotmail.com&gt; 2012-01-23 00:56:14 CET --- Thanks again for your help :) I've been looking into patches and what not but I've been so busy with my school work and lectures that I have not had any time to try them. Thanks for the Mandriva patch though! I completely missed that one. Also, as I said before, I can't seem to build with %cmake, I've been trying to figure it out, and I think I found a fix but still haven't had time. I've also not had time to fix the debug package. I'm not exactly 100% sure how they work but I am trying to fix that too. As for the post, postun, posttrans: sorry about that, I forgot to make it gtk only. As well, I'm not sure why I put the conflicts in there... I removed them, please ignore that ;) Hmmm /etc/%{name}.cfg would cause problems. Considering I put noreplace, I would suppose the issue isn't on installing both but if one is removed and the other is intact. Maybe put it in a third package that is required by both sdl and gtk? (say vbam-config subpackage?) I'm not sure if this is good/bad measure or if a better alternative exists. I have taken your suggestions and updated the SPEC and SPM. There is still issues with %cmake and the debug but I'm working on that. I also tried to make the SPEC much more organized and readable. Thanks again! I want to try and get 1054 to build with %cmake and a fixed debug package, so that is my next step. I also need to fix /etc/vbam.cfg. SPEC: http://dl.dropbox.com/u/42480493/vbam.spec SRPM: http://dl.dropbox.com/u/42480493/vbam-1.8.0.1001-3.fc16.src.rpm -- 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=2101 --- Comment #12 from Jeremy Newton <alexjnewt(a)hotmail.com&gt; 2012-01-23 06:01:36 CET --- I've contacted upstream, should I just ignore these Errors or include a patch to fix these errors? I can't seem to find any information on what to do in the guidelines. -- 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=2101 --- Comment #14 from Jeremy Newton <alexjnewt(a)hotmail.com&gt; 2012-01-23 15:38:33 CET --- Thanks again for your help! I definitely feel more happy and confident in this packaging business now :) I still need to figure out those ffmpeg issues (for 1054) with upstream, but my vbam 1.8.0.1001 package is definitely shining. -- 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=2101 --- Comment #15 from Jirka <hladky.jiri(a)googlemail.com&gt; 2012-01-27 01:12:34 CET --- Hi Jeremy, I have taken this BZ as I plan to do the formal review hopefully over the weekend. Thanks Jirka -- 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=2101 --- Comment #16 from Jeremy Newton <alexjnewt(a)hotmail.com&gt; 2012-01-27 01:29:24 CET --- Thanks! :) Also, earlier today I managed to figure out the issue I had with the latest version 1.8.0.1054 and I just updated the SPEC. So here's the newer version instead: SPEC: http://dl.dropbox.com/u/42480493/vbam.spec SRPM: http://dl.dropbox.com/u/42480493/vbam-1.8.0.1054-1.fc16.src.rpm Unfortunately this new build gives me a rpmlint error, which I can't seem to figure out how to fix: vbam-wx.x86_64: E: binary-or-shlib-defines-rpath /usr/bin/wxvbam ['/home/makerpm/rpmbuild/BUILD/vbam-1.8.0.1054'] If this does pose a problem, the WX gui can be disabled until a solution is found; note the GTK gui does not have this error. -- 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=2101 --- Comment #18 from Jeremy Newton <alexjnewt(a)hotmail.com&gt; 2012-01-27 23:46:26 CET --- After some research I managed to figure out how to remove the rpath issue; as well, I made some improvements to the SPEC. Here's the new version: SPEC: http://dl.dropbox.com/u/42480493/vbam.spec SRPM: http://dl.dropbox.com/u/42480493/vbam-1.8.0.1054-2.fc16.src.rpm -- 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=2101 --- Comment #20 from Jirka <hladky.jiri(a)googlemail.com&gt; 2012-01-28 00:14:37 CET --- Hi Jeremy, I'm sorry it seems I'm little behind. I have just finished build of vbam-1.8.0.1001-4.fc16.src.rpm There are quite a lots of warnings during the compile. None of these is serious. Nevertheless, could you please contact the developers and ask them to look into it if possible? (It's not your responsibility to fix the bugs) There are 381 warnings and actually some important warnings can then easily get overlooked. For example this one should be checked: /builddir/build/BUILD/vbam-1.8.0.1001/src/apu/Blip_Buffer.cpp:32:18: warning: large integer implicitly truncated to unsigned type [-Woverflow] I have attached build log. Please feel free to send it to the upstream. I will look tomorrow to your latest SRPM. Good night Jirka -- 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=2101 --- Comment #22 from Jirka <hladky.jiri(a)googlemail.com&gt; 2012-01-29 23:48:36 CET --- Hi Jeremy, it's fine to just inform developers about the compile warnings. I have checked vbam-1.8.0.1054-2.fc16.src.rpm package. There is one missing dependency to successfully build the package: openal-soft-devel Can you please update SPEC file? Package review: +: OK -: must be fixed =: should be fixed (at your discretion) ?: Question or clairification needed N: not applicable MUST: [=] rpmlint output FSF issue - upstream informed vbam-gtk.i686: W: no-manual-page-for-binary gvbam vbam-wx.i686: W: no-manual-page-for-binary wxvbam Please consider to ask upstream to write a minimal man page - just stating what each of this command is doing [+] follows package naming guidelines [+] spec file base name matches package name [+] package meets the packaging guidelines [+] package uses a Fedora approved license: GPLv2 [+] license field matches the actual license. [+] license file is included in %doc: License.txt [+] spec file is in American English [+] spec file is legible [+] sources match upstream: md5sum matches (f9a67e65dd6df4d5190321f6fc758c24) [+] package builds on at least one primary arch: Tested F16 x86 32-bit [N] appropriate use of ExcludeArch [-] all build requirements in BuildRequires openal-soft-devel is missing [+] spec file handles locales properly [N] ldconfig in %post and %postun [+] no bundled copies of system libraries [N] no relocatable packages [+] package owns all directories that it creates [-] no files listed twice in %files doc/gpl.txt doc/License.txt I think it's enough to install these files only in common subpackage [+] proper permissions on files [+] consistent use of macros [+] code or permissible content [N] large documentation in -doc [+] no runtime dependencies in %doc [N] header files in -devel [N] static libraries in -static [N] .so in -devel [N] -devel requires main package [N] package contains no libtool archives [+] package contains a desktop file, uses desktop-file-install/validate [+] package does not own files/dirs owned by other packages [+] all filenames in UTF-8 SHOULD: [+] query upstream for license text [+] description and summary contains available translations [?] package builds in mock: Didn't test [+] package builds on all supported arches: Tested x86 32 bit [?] package functions as described: Application is running but I have not tried to load anything into it [+] sane scriptlets [+] subpackages require the main package [N] placement of pkgconfig files [N] file dependencies versus package dependencies [=] package contains man pages for binaries/scripts Summary: blocking issues: all build requirements in BuildRequires no files listed twice in %files should issues: Please check the man page issue. Perhaps it would just enough to move man page from sdl subpackage to the common package and add vbam-gtk and vbam-wx to the names? Please check /usr/share/man/man3/printf.3.gz and man fprintf to see what I mean - here one man page describes multiple variants of printf functions. We are almost at the end of the review process. Good job! Regards Jirka -- 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=2101 --- Comment #24 from Jirka <hladky.jiri(a)googlemail.com&gt; 2012-01-31 23:18:11 CET --- Hi Jeremy, good work! Regarding man pages - I suggest that you write a short man page, which will only describe what the binaries do (keep it short, description on 2 or 3 lines should be enough) and send them to the upstream. Usually, upstream will just incorporate the newly added man pages to the project. In any case, this is not blocking issue. *** APPROVED *** Jirka -- 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=2101 Jeremy Newton <alexjnewt(a)hotmail.com&gt; changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Blocks| |33 --- Comment #25 from Jeremy Newton <alexjnewt(a)hotmail.com&gt; 2012-02-11 16:32:47 CET --- Package CVS request ====================== Package Name: vbam Short Description: High compatibility Gameboy Advance Emulator combining VBA developments Owners: jem256 (Jeremy Newton) Branches: F-15, F-16, devel InitialCC: ---------------------- License tag: free -- 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=2101 Jeremy Newton <alexjnewt(a)hotmail.com&gt; changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |RESOLVED Resolution| |FIXED --- Comment #26 from Jeremy Newton <alexjnewt(a)hotmail.com&gt; 2012-02-19 21:31:13 CET --- The F17 and F18/rawhide are not building due to repo/yum issues. I'll be sure to retry these in a few days. I'm closing this, as the Fedora stable (F15,F16) builds were successful :) -- 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.