https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=3043 Alec Leamas <leamas.alec(a)gmail.com&gt; changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Blocks|2 |3 AssignedTo|rpmfusion-package-review@rp |leamas.alec(a)gmail.com |mfusion.org | -- 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=3043 --- Comment #3 from Sérgio Basto <sergio(a)serjux.com&gt; 2013-11-25 23:18:58 CET --- (In reply to comment #2) Simone wrote somewhere that is to overwrite the original -- 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=3043 --- Comment #5 from Simone Caronni <negativo17(a)gmail.com&gt; 2013-11-26 09:00:40 CET --- This is to upgrade the original package and avoid issues when using a mix of Adobe repositories and on RHEL 6 the supplementary channel. The bundled spec file (flash-plugin.spec.in) states the architectures on which it is built. The lpf package needs an update to build both i686 and x86_64 packages at the same time but at its current stage it is able to build and install the package on the base architecture of the system. It is horrible indeed, but at least it's much more stable now that Adobe has stopped integrating new features. The only other option on Linux is the pepper plugin on the proprietary build of Chrome; the open Chromium does not have it. So this is the only chance unfortunately. The i686 plugin is required as well by Steam to play videos in the various screens. I will do eventually, but this is hard and time consuming as my driver is almost totally different from the RPMFusion one. Time is limited and I have other priorities and things to finish before submitting this one. I think that finishing all the pending stuff in RPMFusion is a good start before starting with the Nvidia driver(s). -- 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=3043 --- Comment #7 from Alec Leamas <leamas.alec(a)gmail.com&gt; 2013-11-26 12:37:13 CET --- For lpf-spotify-client I added the following to the description to cope with some of Nicholas remarks: target-summary: Spotify music player native client target-arch: i386 i686 x86_64 target-license: No modification permitted, non-redistributable target-url: http://www.spotify.com/se/blog/archives/2010/07/12/linux/ Hopefully, a format like this is easy enough to handle for both humans and machines. -- 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=3043 --- Comment #9 from Simone Caronni <negativo17(a)gmail.com&gt; 2013-11-26 14:24:35 CET --- Fedora already handles such cases of duplicated binaries, the native one takes precedence. Please look here at my system where I have both installed: $ rpm -qa flash-plugin flash-plugin-11.2.202.327-1.fc19.i686 flash-plugin-11.2.202.327-1.fc19.x86_64 The following lists both packages: $ rpm -ql flash-plugin | grep bin /usr/bin/flash-player-properties /usr/bin/flash-player-properties But the one in bin is the correct arch one. $ file /usr/bin/flash-player-properties /usr/bin/flash-player-properties: ELF 64-bit LSB executable, x86-64, version 1 (SYSV), dynamically linked (uses shared libs), for GNU/Linux 2.6.9, stripped But more clean would be if I would split flash-player-properties in its own package. This way we can have the libs on both archs (i686 and x86_64) and the flash-player-properties only in your native arch. The purpose of flash-player-properties is to only write preferences in ~/.adobe. This would make everything look like normal libraries in Fedora, where you have the libs multiarch, and the binaries single arch. x86_64: flash-plugin-properties.x86_64 flash-plugin.x86_64 flash-plugin.i686 i686: flash-plugin-properties.i686 flash-plugin.i686 I'm doing this, will post it the updated package in a couple of hours (I'm at work!). Question for Alec: can't we just run lpf-setup-pkg two times, one for each arch in the %install section if the arch is x86_64? -- 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=3043 --- Comment #11 from Alec Leamas <leamas.alec(a)gmail.com&gt; 2013-11-26 14:43:33 CET --- (In reply to comment #9) As of now, I think we will run into problems. lpf-setup-pkg basically creates a directory named after the target package without any arch part i . e., running it twice will be a name collision. And some hack to generate different names will break the overall promise lpf package name -> target package name -> file system directory name. If possible, I'd prefer to have this as-is. -- 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=3043 --- Comment #13 from Alec Leamas <leamas.alec(a)gmail.com&gt; 2013-11-26 14:55:56 CET --- (In reply to comment #12) OK, fine with me. -- 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=3043 --- Comment #15 from Nicolas Chauvet <kwizart(a)gmail.com&gt; 2013-12-01 16:43:16 CET --- (In reply to comment #7) My original remark was that the lpf package itslef need to be arched. In this case. It will built both x86_64 i686 (or i386 version) and I can copy the lpf-flash-plugin.i386 to the x86_64 repository. so the lpf-flash-plugin will not end in a repository it does not make sense. (such as arm ppc etc). This is either i386 or i686, but I don't think both makes sense. Even if we default to i686, but flash still produce a i386, then i386 should be the right arch. -- 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=3043 --- Comment #17 from Alec Leamas <leamas.alec(a)gmail.com&gt; 2013-12-07 07:14:06 CET --- Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated Issues: ====== - Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise (please justify the debug_package and _strip). - Fix the mixed tabs in the spec (rpmlint warning) - Please add an empty build section, makes things easier for other programs parsing the spec. ===== MUST items ===== C/C++: [x]: Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present. Generic: [x]: License is acceptable in a lpf context. [x]: 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 %doc. [x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. No licenses found. Please check the source files for licenses manually. [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [-]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise. [x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception. [x]: Changelog in prescribed format. [!]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the beginning of %install. Note: rm -rf %{buildroot} present but not required [x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content. [-]: 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. [x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary. [x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English. [-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need. [x]: gtk-update-icon-cache is invoked in %postun and %posttrans if package contains icons. Note: icons in flash-plugin-properties [!]: 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 10240 bytes in 1 files. [x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines, besides rpmfusion modifications. [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]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time. [x]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application. [x]: Package installs a %{name}.desktop using desktop-file-install or desktop- file-validate if there is such a file. [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 do not use a name that already exist [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: [-]: 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). [?]: 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. [x] Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. [-]: %check is present and all tests pass. [x]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files. [x]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file [x]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag [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]: Dist tag is present (not strictly required in GL). [x]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin. [x]: SourceX is a working URL. [x]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. [x]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified. ===== EXTRA items ===== Generic: [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. Rpmlint ------- Checking: flash-plugin-11.2.202.327-2.fc21.i686.rpm flash-plugin-properties-11.2.202.327-2.fc21.i686.rpm flash-plugin-11.2.202.327-2.fc21.src.rpm flash-plugin.i686: W: invalid-license Non-redistributable, no modification permitted flash-plugin-properties.i686: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US perferences -> preferences, references, conferences flash-plugin-properties.i686: W: invalid-license Non-redistributable, no modification permitted flash-plugin-properties.i686: W: no-documentation flash-plugin-properties.i686: W: no-manual-page-for-binary flash-player-properties flash-plugin.src: W: invalid-license Non-redistributable, no modification permitted flash-plugin.src: W: no-%build-section flash-plugin.src:2: W: mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs (spaces: line 1, tab: line 2) 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 8 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- # rpmlint flash-plugin flash-plugin-properties flash-plugin.i686: W: invalid-license Non-redistributable, no modification permitted flash-plugin-properties.i686: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US perferences -> preferences, references, conferences flash-plugin-properties.i686: W: invalid-license Non-redistributable, no modification permitted flash-plugin-properties.i686: W: no-documentation flash-plugin-properties.i686: W: no-manual-page-for-binary flash-player-properties 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 5 warnings. # echo 'rpmlint-done:' Requires -------- flash-plugin (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): ld-linux.so.2 libX11.so.6 libXcursor.so.1 libXext.so.6 libXrender.so.1 libXt.so.6 libatk-1.0.so.0 libc.so.6 libcairo.so.2 libdl.so.2 libfontconfig.so.1 libfreetype.so.6 libgdk-x11-2.0.so.0 libgdk_pixbuf-2.0.so.0 libglib-2.0.so.0 libgmodule-2.0.so.0 libgobject-2.0.so.0 libgthread-2.0.so.0 libgtk-x11-2.0.so.0 libm.so.6 libnspr4.so libnss3.so libnss3.so(NSS_3.10) libnss3.so(NSS_3.11) libnss3.so(NSS_3.12) libnss3.so(NSS_3.2) libnss3.so(NSS_3.3) libnss3.so(NSS_3.4) libnss3.so(NSS_3.6) libnss3.so(NSS_3.9) libnss3.so(NSS_3.9.2) libnssutil3.so libpango-1.0.so.0 libpangocairo-1.0.so.0 libpangoft2-1.0.so.0 libplc4.so libplds4.so libpthread.so.0 librt.so.1 libsmime3.so libsmime3.so(NSS_3.2) libsmime3.so(NSS_3.4) libssl3.so libssl3.so(NSS_3.2) mozilla-filesystem flash-plugin-properties (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /bin/sh flash-plugin(x86-32) hicolor-icon-theme ld-linux.so.2 libatk-1.0.so.0 libc.so.6 libcairo.so.2 libdl.so.2 libfontconfig.so.1 libfreetype.so.6 libgdk-x11-2.0.so.0 libgdk_pixbuf-2.0.so.0 libglib-2.0.so.0 libgmodule-2.0.so.0 libgobject-2.0.so.0 libgtk-x11-2.0.so.0 libm.so.6 libpango-1.0.so.0 libpangocairo-1.0.so.0 libpangoft2-1.0.so.0 Provides -------- flash-plugin: flash-plugin flash-plugin(x86-32) lib_plugin.so flash-plugin-properties: application() application(flash-player-properties.desktop) flash-plugin-kde flash-plugin-properties flash-plugin-properties(x86-32) Unversioned so-files -------------------- flash-plugin: /usr/lib/mozilla/plugins/libflashplayer.so Source checksums ---------------- http://fpdownload.macromedia.com/get/flashplayer/pdc/11.2.202.327/install... : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 1fbbadf17c86b3fd52bbf1df299f52c0b2eb7a0b9aca1d55756bc884c9270f62 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 1fbbadf17c86b3fd52bbf1df299f52c0b2eb7a0b9aca1d55756bc884c9270f62 http://fpdownload.macromedia.com/get/flashplayer/pdc/11.2.202.327/install... : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 34248b36f4b640c0b3846a334f995414c1bf4c8813ec80e2dbd3028d38bb4235 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 34248b36f4b640c0b3846a334f995414c1bf4c8813ec80e2dbd3028d38bb4235 Generated by fedora-review 0.5.0 (6defee6) last change: 2013-10-04 Command line :./try-fedora-review -rn /home/mk/FedoraReview/flash-plugin-11.2.202.327-2.fc19.src.rpm Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-i386 Active plugins: Generic, Shell-api Disabled plugins: Java, C/C++, Python, fonts, SugarActivity, Ocaml, Perl, Haskell, R, PHP, Ruby Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL5, BATCH, DISTTAG -- 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=3043 Simone Caronni <negativo17(a)gmail.com&gt; changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Blocks|4 |33 --- Comment #19 from Simone Caronni <negativo17(a)gmail.com&gt; 2013-12-16 08:40:36 CET --- Package CVS request ====================== Package Name: lpf-flash-plugin Short Description: Adobe Flash Player package bootstrap Owners: leamas slaanesh Branches: f18 f19 f20 InitialCC: ---------------------- License tag: nonfree -- 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=3043 Nicolas Chauvet <kwizart(a)gmail.com&gt; changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Blocks|33 | -- 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=3043 --- Comment #22 from Simone Caronni <negativo17(a)gmail.com&gt; 2014-01-29 09:44:11 CET --- Sorry, I used the Fedora branch name. Updated request: Package Change Request ====================== Package Name: lpf-flash-plugin New Branches: EL-6 Updated RPMFusion Owners: leamas slaanesh sergiomb Updated EPEL Owners: leamas slaanesh sergiomb -- 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=3043 --- Comment #24 from Sérgio Basto <sergio(a)serjux.com&gt; 2014-01-29 19:45:44 CET --- (In reply to comment #23) sorry. reported in wrong bug report, but cvs request can be made in any bug report and with bug closed. -- 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=3043 Simone Caronni <negativo17(a)gmail.com&gt; changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |RESOLVED Resolution| |FIXED -- 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.