http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=248 Orcan Ogetbil <orcanbahri(a)yahoo.com&gt; changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |orcanbahri(a)yahoo.com --- Comment #2 from Orcan Ogetbil <orcanbahri(a)yahoo.com&gt; 2008-12-13 02:17:03 --- Well, there is no problem with the distribution of rar. And I agree that, since there are lots of open source alternatives to rar, we don't need to seem like we are promoting proprietary software. But rar is a very standard format nowadays. unrar does a nice job but it doesn't have all the features rar has. The biggest advantage of rar over unrar is its handling of broken .rar packages. We have a non-free repo already. Since we don't have a policy to keep that repo as small as possible, I vote for including rar in rpmfusion. -- Configure bugmail: http://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.

http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=248 --- Comment #4 from Orcan Ogetbil <orcanbahri(a)yahoo.com&gt; 2008-12-13 05:49:55 --- I do believe that it's the user's responsibility to check the licenses of the items they get from the non-free repo. But for the sake of safety, is it possible for us to set a cron job to remove this RPM after the 40 days period? As for the package, the disttag is missing and the %{name} macro can be used a little more often. Otherwise it's ready to go. -- Configure bugmail: http://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.

http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=248 --- Comment #6 from Gianluca Sforna <giallu(a)gmail.com&gt; 2008-12-13 19:37:23 --- (In reply to comment #5) Maybe this is a work for the "Display EULAs" feature of PackageKit ? -- Configure bugmail: http://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.

http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=248 Lubos Stanek <lubek(a)users.sourceforge.net&gt; changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |lubek(a)users.sourceforge.net --- Comment #8 from Lubos Stanek <lubek(a)users.sourceforge.net&gt; 2008-12-14 20:58:53 --- Binaries should not be stripped, e.g. to distribute as designed. There is another superior feature of the shareware rar/unrar. It handles the encryption and the authenticity verification (registered) unlike the free source unrar. Therefore you should package the unrar binary as well and handle it in alternatives with higher priority over the free source unrar. Another good feature would be to package more sfx modules for other OSs, mainly the most frequent one ( :-D ). -- Configure bugmail: http://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.

http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=248 --- Comment #10 from Lubos Stanek <lubek(a)users.sourceforge.net&gt; 2009-02-02 14:40:05 --- (In reply to comment #9) Yes, they are. Check brp-strip*. No objections. Although rar 2.xx is required only by dvdrip and it would suffice to distribute /usr/bin/rar29 for example. You would have to patch dvdrip in either case to be able to find it automatically. Would not it be better to use some free archiver for this purpose? Are some players able to extract a vobsub track from a different archive? I must say that I am not an expert in this area. The sfx (selfextractor) modules are prepended to the archive to create the binary self extracting archive. These sfx modules would be reasonable: bsd.sfx dosx.sfx linux-x86.sfx linux-x86_64.sfx osx.sfx windows-console.sfx windows.sfx windows-zip.sfx Notice that this feature would extend the original distribution. -- Configure bugmail: http://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.

http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=248 Thorsten Leemhuis <fedora(a)leemhuis.info&gt; changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC|fedora(a)leemhuis.info | --- Comment #12 from Thorsten Leemhuis <fedora(a)leemhuis.info&gt; 2009-02-21 14:02:33 --- just curious: what the status here? can anything be done to get things rolling again? -- Configure bugmail: http://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.

http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=248 NicolasChauvet <kwizart(a)gmail.com&gt; changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|RESOLVED |REOPENED Resolution|FIXED | --- Comment #13 from NicolasChauvet <kwizart(a)gmail.com&gt; 2009-03-17 20:13:10 --- @Lubos - Why do you think anything got stripped once debuginfo subpackage are disabled ? - Where to get the sfx modules ? Where to store them ? -- Configure bugmail: http://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.

http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=248 --- Comment #15 from Lubos Stanek <lubek(a)users.sourceforge.net&gt; 2009-03-18 10:47:08 --- (In reply to comment #13) See /usr/lib/rpm/brp-strip-comment-note. I sent you my .spec file for a reference. Maybe it is sitting in your spam folder. I am packaging sfxs into %{_libdir} and symlinking them into /usr/local/etc (the binary expects them there). Maybe the %{_libexecdir} would be more appropriate instead of %{_libdir}. Otherwise it is possible to include the full path to the sfx module on the command line. bsd.sfx - default.sfx in the package for FreeBSD (rarbsd-*) dosx.sfx - default.sfx in the package for MS DOS (rarx*) linux-x86.sfx - default.sfx in the package for Linux (rarlinux-*) linux-x86_64.sfx - default.sfx in the package for Linux x64 (rarlinux-x64-*) osx.sfx - default.sfx in the package for Mac OS X (rarosx-*) windows-console.sfx - WinCon.SFX in the WinRAR installer (wrar*) windows.sfx - Default.SFX in the WinRAR installer (wrar*) windows-zip.sfx - Zip.SFX in the WinRAR installer (wrar*) Some packages are compressed by rar. It would be possible to extract them by rar_static in the build time (it would limit the build to work only on %{ix86} and x86_64). Maybe it would be useful to package modules in a standalone package (rar-sfx) to speed up the review of the main rar package. -- Configure bugmail: http://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.

http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=248 --- Comment #17 from Lubos Stanek <lubek(a)users.sourceforge.net&gt; 2009-03-18 12:04:00 --- (In reply to comment #16) The packages for other OSs are at the same place as the Linux package. To paraphrase your question: is it relevant to have <any>sfx on <any>architecture? I do not want to limit the user. It is his decision whether to use a sfx module and what one. The resulting binary does not have to be executable on the creation system. Hi Nicolas, I know that you have been packaging application for Fedora for a long time and your time is short. I am packaging rar for my private purposes so the .spec file could be of some use for you. The problematic part is the sfxs archive. I am currently creating it myself. The sfx modules are distributed in the appropriate system/os distribution package and it is necessary to extract it. Any automated script has been complex too much for me so far. -- Configure bugmail: http://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.

http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=248 --- Comment #19 from NicolasChauvet <kwizart(a)gmail.com&gt; 2009-03-24 03:01:02 --- (In reply to comment #18) --> (http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/attachment.cgi?id=127) [details] This spec is a better start point than mine... There is few issue to be fixed, specially : - Use -p to prevent timestramp change when using install - Write a snapshot script to automatically download and extract the binary sfx for each system. - Use %ghost %{_bindir}/un%{name} so unrar namespace can be provided. (same with rar once versionned rar is implemented) It might have other changes needed, Btw removing a dist tag should be valid, but because of rpm changes with StrongerHash and rpm >= 4.6.0-1 will be required once the package will be built on later than F-10 GA. So re-introducing the dist in release will be needed anyhow. -- Configure bugmail: http://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.

http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=248 NicolasChauvet <kwizart(a)gmail.com&gt; changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Blocks| |2 -- Configure bugmail: http://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.

http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=248 --- Comment #22 from Chen Lei <supercyper(a)163.com&gt; 2010-04-07 19:34:35 --- (In reply to comment #21) 1.We should not distribute default.sfx in rar, because it's opensource and can be built from unrar source(unrar already in fedora but missing default.sfx) for all platform. 2.I can not find any differnent between opensource unrar and closesource one, anymore information about this? -- Configure bugmail: http://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.

http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=248 --- Comment #24 from Chen Lei <supercyper(a)163.com&gt; 2010-04-10 21:05:34 --- (In reply to comment #23) No needed. rar_static is all the same as rar except static linking with some common libs which is totally forbidden in fedora package guideline. Also the default makefile in rarlinux do not install it. Using /usr/local is not permitted in fedora package. The default path in makefile for sfx is /usr/lib and it works, though it's not the best place for sfx. Maybe you should add more evidence about this, I tried "unrar help" with both types of unrar and they display the same content. The opensource rar definitely can handles the encryption and the authenticity verification. Note: opensource unrar=nonfree rar gna unrar=free rar See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unrar We don't need to distribute files that already in other package with the same function and probably the same copy of source. The rpm from Atrpms and also debian repo don't distribute unrar in rar. -- Configure bugmail: http://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.