[Bug 2216] Review request: Not Tetris 2 - Classic Tetris mixed with physics
https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2216
--- Comment #10 from Jeremy Newton 2012-04-06 20:51:24
CEST ---
(In reply to comment #9)
> Sorry for the delay.
>
> (In reply to comment #3)
> > A bunch of notes, I can do a full review later:
> > [...]
>
> Great help, thanks. I followed almost all of these, and your SRPM was of great
No problem, always up to help :)
> > -You missing %post, %postun and %posttrans sections, which are required for
> > desktop files with icons: (you can also see my SPRM below)
> > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Icon_tag_in_Desktop_Files
>
> Well, in https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:ScriptletSnippets#Icon_Cache
> says that is to do when 'an application installs icons into one of the
> subdirectories in %{_datadir}/icons/', but that's not the case anymore. Seeing
> your SRPM example, I wrote the icon into %_datadir/pixmaps/, so the previous
> condition is not fulfilled anymore. For that reason, I did not add those
> scriptlets. Correct me if I'm wrong, please.
I believe pixmaps is also a part of the icon cache, thus it still needs to be
updated, though I am not completely sure on this. I'll let you know when I
figure that out. I guess I just always assumed it should be there without
checking.
> > By the way, kudos for the idea of getting the logo from the love file, it
> > never
> > occurred to me to do that.
>
> Thanks. If you are thinking about packaging mari0, just mention that you can
> do
> that there too. If not, I can package it.
I have mari0 packaged, I just need to upload it. I got love accepted into
Fedora, so I just want to run a quick test before I upload it.
> > -Man pages are not vital for getting your package accepted, but it is
> > suggested
> > to look into making one.
>
> I have not a clue about how to do this. I think this should be upstream work,
> though.
It's very simple, you can make one in a few minutes. Take a look at my love
package for an example:
http://kojipkgs.fedoraproject.org/packages/love/0.8.0/2.fc18/src/love-0.8.0-2.fc18.src.rpm
Just open the love.1 with a text editor and the rest is easy.
You can either make one or ask upstream to make one, which I highly doubt they
will. If you do make one, you can send it upstream and they may include it in
the linux version though.
I would like to strongly note that you are not required to make a man page,
though it's just highly suggested.
> > -To my knowledge %defattr(-, root, root) shouldn't be required, but to be
> > honest I've never used it before.
>
> I never really understood that. I used to put it because I saw it in a lot of
> places. Anyway I removed that.
I believe that is for compatibility with RedHat EL 5, and unless you plan to
package for EPEL 5, it's pointless. As well I'm only currently maintaining love
for Fedora 15, 16, 17, devel/rawhide
On another note, the version of love I submitted for fedora, which is still in
updates testing, is version 0.8.0. Though they have not advertised it on their
website yet, love 0.8.0 has been tagged in their SCM (bitbucket). I'm not sure
what this is all about.
Anyway, Not tetris at the moment does not work on 0.8.0, and I contacted
upstream about this. They said until love 0.8.0 is "official released" they
don't plan to update Not Tetris.
Naturally this issue puts this review on hold unless you would like to take a
crack at making a patch yourself or would like to contact upstream for one.
--
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.
[Bug 2216] Review request: Not Tetris 2 - Classic Tetris mixed with physics
https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2216
--- Comment #11 from Hans de Goede 2012-04-07
09:48:01 CEST ---
(In reply to comment #10)
> (In reply to comment #9)
> > > -You missing %post, %postun and %posttrans sections, which are required
> > > for
> > > desktop files with icons: (you can also see my SPRM below)
> > > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Icon_tag_in_Desktop_Files
> >
> > Well, in
> > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:ScriptletSnippets#Icon_Cache
> > says that is to do when 'an application installs icons into one of the
> > subdirectories in %{_datadir}/icons/', but that's not the case anymore.
> > Seeing
> > your SRPM example, I wrote the icon into %_datadir/pixmaps/, so the previous
> > condition is not fulfilled anymore. For that reason, I did not add those
> > scriptlets. Correct me if I'm wrong, please.
>
> I believe pixmaps is also a part of the icon cache, thus it still needs to be
> updated, though I am not completely sure on this. I'll let you know when I
> figure that out. I guess I just always assumed it should be there without
> checking.
When you put an icon in /usr/share/pixmaps you don't need the icon cache
scriptlets. But the preferred locations for icons is under
/usr/share/icons/hicolor/apps/#x# so unless there is a specific reason not
to put the icon there, please put it there.
> > > -To my knowledge %defattr(-, root, root) shouldn't be required, but to be
> > > honest I've never used it before.
> >
> > I never really understood that. I used to put it because I saw it in a lot
> > of
> > places. Anyway I removed that.
>
> I believe that is for compatibility with RedHat EL 5, and unless you plan to
> package for EPEL 5, it's pointless. As well I'm only currently maintaining
> love
> for Fedora 15, 16, 17, devel/rawhide
Right, %defattr is there in a lot of packages simply because it never got
removed
it is not needed anymore these days...
Regards,
Hans
--
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.
[Bug 2216] Review request: Not Tetris 2 - Classic Tetris mixed with physics
https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2216 Paul Howarth changed: What|Removed |Added CC||p...@city-fan.org --- Comment #12 from Paul Howarth 2012-04-07 11:33:41 CEST --- (In reply to comment #11) > (In reply to comment #10) > > (In reply to comment #9) > > > > -To my knowledge %defattr(-, root, root) shouldn't be required, but to > > > > be > > > > honest I've never used it before. > > > > > > I never really understood that. I used to put it because I saw it in a > > > lot of > > > places. Anyway I removed that. > > > > I believe that is for compatibility with RedHat EL 5, and unless you plan to > > package for EPEL 5, it's pointless. As well I'm only currently maintaining > > love > > for Fedora 15, 16, 17, devel/rawhide > > Right, %defattr is there in a lot of packages simply because it never got > removed > it is not needed anymore these days... It's not needed for EL-5 even; it became redundant with rpm 4.4, so the last supported release that needed it was EL-4, which is now EOL. -- 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.
[Bug 2261] Review request geotrans-3.1
https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2261 --- Comment #2 from Byron 2012-04-08 00:06:30 CEST --- Created attachment 851 --> https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/attachment.cgi?id=851 Terms of Use/License -- 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.
[Bug 2261] Review request geotrans-3.1
https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2261 Byron changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||30 --- Comment #3 from Byron 2012-04-08 00:07:51 CEST --- (In reply to comment #1) > Hm, unless I'm missing something then the license is free and thus acceptable > for Fedora (IANAL). > > ... > NGA hereby grants to each user of the software a license to use and distribute > the software, and develop derivative works. > > => rights for use, distributing and modifying are granted which are the main > attributes making the license acceptable Hey there Dan. No, I don't think your missing anything. And if you were, I am certain you would probably be missing less than me! The license situation focuses on three issues; First, there is no GEOTRANS license mentioned at http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing:Main Second, the GEOTRANS license/ Terms of Use (are they the same thing?) is unique and would require significant resources to analyze, defend, and pursue. Just not worth it. Third, the last sentence of paragraph 2 is "Do not use the name GEOTRANS for any derived work." The make system required extensive modification (still would not meet opensource requirements) and there were some patches necessary to activate all features. I doubt that these modifications would constitute a derived work, but, without legal review, cannot be said for certain. Submitting the package under an alternate name to satisfy paragraph 2 would basically reduce and obscure package to total obscurity, and render the entire effort meaningless. FWIY, I am assuming that Geotrans 3.2 (recently released) would have the same issues, but I have not pursued it, seeing as Geotrans 3.1 suits my needs. If Geotrans 3.1 is accepted, then an 3.2 update would be available within a reasonable period of time. -- 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.
[Bug 30] Tracker : Sponsorship Request
https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=30 Byron changed: What|Removed |Added Depends on||2261 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the assignee for the bug.
[Bug 2261] Review request geotrans-3.1
https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2261 --- Comment #4 from Kevin Kofler 2012-04-08 01:39:49 CEST --- Hmmm, clause 2 looks suspicious: What's a "product developed using the software"? Requiring a label to be printed on all those sounds overreaching to me. In any case, the process where freeness is unclear is as follows: * file a review request in Fedora, at bugzilla.redhat.com * in the Blocks: field of the bug at bugzilla.redhat.com, enter FE-LEGAL * wait for Fedora's decision before taking any further steps. -- 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.
[Bug 2216] Review request: Not Tetris 2 - Classic Tetris mixed with physics
https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2216 --- Comment #13 from Yajo 2012-04-08 17:41:54 CEST --- (In reply to comment #10) > I would like to strongly note that you are not required to make a man page, > though it's just highly suggested. I saw yours, but it's a bit hard of understand when you never made one before. If it is not required, and being the case that I don't think it would help at all (as the executable has no arguments and descriptions are viewable from the RPM), i think I'll skip this step. If anyone wants to make one, I can include it though. > On another note, the version of love I submitted for fedora, which is still in > updates testing, is version 0.8.0. Though they have not advertised it on their > website yet, love 0.8.0 has been tagged in their SCM (bitbucket). I'm not sure > what this is all about. > Anyway, Not tetris at the moment does not work on 0.8.0, and I contacted > upstream about this. They said until love 0.8.0 is "official released" they > don't plan to update Not Tetris. > Naturally this issue puts this review on hold unless you would like to take a > crack at making a patch yourself or would like to contact upstream for one. I see upstream reasonable here, so the best we can do is wait for LÖVE 0.8.0 to become officially stable. Right now I'm running the game by having separate stable and unstable versions of LÖVE. (In reply to comment #11) > When you put an icon in /usr/share/pixmaps you don't need the icon cache > scriptlets. But the preferred locations for icons is under > /usr/share/icons/hicolor/apps/#x# so unless there is a specific reason not > to put the icon there, please put it there. Moved back there and scriptlets added. > Right, %defattr is there in a lot of packages simply because it never got > removed > it is not needed anymore these days... Thanks for the info. It's nice to have experts around. New SRPM in http://www.mediafire.com/?2erv9ub6c8wc24q Please check. If it's alright I'd thank some info about the sponsorship. -- 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.
[Bug 2269] New: Review request: ffmpeg-compat - ffmpeg compat libraries
https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2269 Bug #: 2269 Summary: Review request: ffmpeg-compat - ffmpeg compat libraries Classification: Unclassified Product: Package Reviews Version: Current Platform: All OS/Version: GNU/Linux Status: NEW Severity: normal Priority: P5 Component: Review Request AssignedTo: rpmfusion-package-rev...@rpmfusion.org ReportedBy: kwiz...@gmail.com CC: rpmfusion-package-rev...@rpmfusion.org Group: Package Reviews SRPM: http://rpms.kwizart.net/fedora/reviews/ffmpeg-compat/ffmpeg-compat-0.6.5-1.el6.src.rpm SPEC: http://rpms.kwizart.net/fedora/reviews/ffmpeg-compat/ffmpeg-compat.spec Summary: ffmpeg compat libraries The package summary can still be improved. This package is only intended to be built for EL-6. It will allow to install and use another ffmpeg version (such as 10.2). That will allow to import 10.2 in EL-6. libvpx was already discussed to need a newer version from EL6 so it's disabled. libva is currently in updates-testing. I'm eventually waiting for 1.0.16 to move it to stable. (others review are still needed related to vaapi within rpmfusion) -- 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.
[Bug 2269] Review request: ffmpeg-compat - ffmpeg compat libraries
https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2269 Nicolas Chauvet changed: What|Removed |Added Group|Package Reviews | CC Accessible|1 |0 CC||hobbes1...@gmail.com Reporter|1 |0 Accessible|| -- 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.
[Bug 2269] Review request: ffmpeg-compat - ffmpeg compat libraries
https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2269 Nicolas Chauvet 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.
[Bug 2269] Review request: ffmpeg-compat - ffmpeg compat libraries
https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2269 Nicolas Chauvet changed: What|Removed |Added CC||r...@greysector.net --- Comment #1 from Nicolas Chauvet 2012-04-11 00:24:49 CEST --- I expect only "final product" (such as binaries) will use this library. I specially have in mind transcode and others tools that have a different release timeline than current ffmpeg, so using it will allow to get newer ffmpeg in EL-6 -- 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.
[Bug 2261] Review request geotrans-3.1
https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2261 Byron changed: What|Removed |Added Attachment #849 is|0 |1 obsolete|| --- Comment #5 from Byron 2012-04-11 03:17:32 CEST --- Created attachment 854 --> https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/attachment.cgi?id=854 lint v3.2 txt -- 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.
[Bug 2261] Review request geotrans-3.1
https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2261 --- Comment #6 from Byron 2012-04-11 03:18:03 CEST --- Here are the 3.2 files ftp://ftp.bkyoung.com/pub/bkyrepo/fedora/updates/16/SRPMS/geotrans-3.2-1bky.fc16.src.rpm ftp://ftp.bkyoung.com/pub/specs/geotrans.spec Still a little polish required, but adequate until resolving other mentioned issues. -- 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.
[Bug 2269] Review request: ffmpeg-compat - ffmpeg compat libraries
https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2269
--- Comment #2 from Richard 2012-04-11 21:54:56 CEST ---
Ok, quick spec review...
1. Unless we're going to build for EL5 the following can (at your preference)
be removed:
BuildRoot:
rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT in %install
%clean
%defattr(-,root,root,-) in %files
2. devel sub-package should be arch dependent, i.e.:
Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release}
3. Completely optional. It was suggested to me once that for out of source
builds this is more elegant:
%build
rm -rf && mkdir && pushd
...
Have you already tested building for ppc and sparc? I don't have any hardware
for that.
--
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.
[Bug 2269] Review request: ffmpeg-compat - ffmpeg compat libraries
https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2269 --- Comment #3 from Nicolas Chauvet 2012-04-12 11:57:18 CEST --- 1/ Can be made, but given that's legacy package it would remain usefull on even older version (than el5). I want to keep them for now. 2/ This macro may not be available on EL-5 but for later release is good to have. I will make a condition. 3/ To me, this only make sense when building for your own from a VCS. it's totally pointless to split the sourcedir from the builddir when building a package. Nevertheless I eventually use this on known build tool (such as cmake autotools). ffmpeg one is specific. I can only test on native arm plateform. (So I may backport the change made for devel/F-17). For others arches that's what is expected according to upstream and fedora's policies. There is still work needed after some second look. - virtual provides ffmpeg-devel for ffmpeg-compat-devel - Move *.pc file from an alternative ffmeg-compat sub-directory so it can be parallele installable with ffmpeg-devel later. - Eventually move the package to rely on LGPL. - Advertise that usage of this package is a security risk that we do not undorse. (not to be used for package exposed to internet such as video player and etc). -- 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.
[Bug 2269] Review request: ffmpeg-compat - ffmpeg compat libraries
https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2269 --- Comment #4 from Richard 2012-04-12 17:51:08 CEST --- (In reply to comment #3) > There is still work needed after some second look. > - virtual provides ffmpeg-devel for ffmpeg-compat-devel > - Move *.pc file from an alternative ffmeg-compat sub-directory so it can be > parallele installable with ffmpeg-devel later. Would this also require the headers to be relocated as well? > - Eventually move the package to rely on LGPL. What's required to do this? I'm assuming it has to do with other projects it links with? The rpmlint on the existing package looks good. -- 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.
[Bug 2269] Review request: ffmpeg-compat - ffmpeg compat libraries
https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2269 --- Comment #5 from Nicolas Chauvet 2012-04-14 17:24:36 CEST --- SRPM: http://rpms.kwizart.net/fedora/reviews/ffmpeg-compat/ffmpeg-compat-0.6.5-2.el6.src.rpm SPEC: http://rpms.kwizart.net/fedora/reviews/ffmpeg-compat/ffmpeg-compat.spec Summary: ffmpeg compat libraries About 3/, I forgot that we were already using out of source tree. But I don't see the point to use that for the build step given since that stage cannot be short-circuited. Changelog: - Move headers .pc and data to a ffmpeg-compat directory. - Update arm options - Disable x264 on armv5tel - Verify %%_isa requirement if available - Virtual Provides ffmpeg-devel - Add a warning about the security risk of this package - Disable vaapi on RHEL until the next libva -- 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.
[Bug 2237] Homer - live conferencing and more
https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2237 --- Comment #14 from Mario Santagiuliana 2012-04-17 10:42:16 CEST --- Update to new snapshot (dc4d1a8) from official git repository. Spec URL: http://rpmbuild.marionline.it/SPECS/Homer.spec SRPMS URL: http://rpmbuild.marionline.it/SRPMS/Homer-0.22-4.20120417gitdc4d1a8.fc16.src.rpm $ rpmlint /var/lib/mock/fedora-16-x86_64/result/*.rpm Homer.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US softphone -> soft phone, soft-phone, sousaphone Homer.src: W: invalid-url Source0: Homer-Conferencing-0.22.gitdc4d1a8.tar.gz Homer.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US softphone -> soft phone, soft-phone, sousaphone Homer.x86_64: W: no-documentation Homer.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary Homer libHomer.x86_64: E: invalid-soname /usr/lib64/libHomerConference.so libHomerConference.so libHomer.x86_64: E: invalid-soname /usr/lib64/libHomerMultimedia.so libHomerMultimedia.so libHomer.x86_64: E: invalid-soname /usr/lib64/libHomerMonitor.so libHomerMonitor.so libHomer.x86_64: E: invalid-soname /usr/lib64/libHomerBase.so libHomerBase.so libHomer.x86_64: E: invalid-soname /usr/lib64/libHomerSoundOutput.so libHomerSoundOutput.so libHomer.x86_64: E: invalid-soname /usr/lib64/libHomerGAPI.so libHomerGAPI.so 4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 6 errors, 5 warnings. I am going to open an issue on github issue tracker of to ask to developer to resolve the invalid-soname errors. -- 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.
[Bug 2237] Homer - live conferencing and more
https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2237 --- Comment #15 from Mario Santagiuliana 2012-04-17 10:48:59 CEST --- Issue about rpmlint errors open here: https://github.com/Homer-Conferencing/Homer-Conferencing/issues/25 -- 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.
[Bug 2216] Review request: Not Tetris 2 - Classic Tetris mixed with physics
https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2216 Jeremy Newton changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|rpmfusion-package-review@rp |alexjn...@hotmail.com |mfusion.org | --- Comment #14 from Jeremy Newton 2012-04-18 03:57:58 CEST --- (In reply to comment #13) > I see upstream reasonable here, so the best we can do is wait for LÖVE 0.8.0 > to > become officially stable. Right now I'm running the game by having separate > stable and unstable versions of LÖVE. Well the version in Fedora right now is the official stable, there was just a delay in the announcement of it. I just updated it a little quicker than upstream updated their website ;) As of now though, it's been announced, so there should not be any more excuses; upstream should be notified if they haven't fixed it yet. > New SRPM in http://www.mediafire.com/?2erv9ub6c8wc24q > > Please check. If it's alright I'd thank some info about the sponsorship. I'll take a look once upstream gets it working with 0.8.0. Also I've assigned myself for reviewing this, as I wish to get this included :) Although I can't give it an official review until you get sponsored. As for sponsorship, you can either seek sponsorship in Fedora, in which you will automatically be sponsored in RPMFusion, or you can just seek sponsorship in just RPMFusion. I found that it was a lot faster to get sponsored in Fedora than RPMFusion, but if you have no interest in that, then there's no need to do it. Generally the rules in RPMFusion are the same as Fedora, with a some exceptions. Naturally you can generally take a look at the Fedora wiki's to get an idea on how this works: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/How_to_get_sponsored_into_the_packager_group Note that all the RPMFusion specific stuff can be here: http://rpmfusion.org/Contributors On a side note, I submitted orthorobot if you're interested: https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2219 I plan to submit Mari0 in the next day or two; I just need to post the review request. I've had it uploaded to my dropbox quite a few weeks ago, but I've been busy unfortunately. -- 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.
[Bug 2216] Review request: Not Tetris 2 - Classic Tetris mixed with physics
https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2216 --- Comment #15 from Jeremy Newton 2012-04-18 04:12:45 CEST --- Just a quick note though, I noticed you used a "convert" command. If you use it, you need to add ImageMagick as a BuildRequire -- 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.
[Bug 2219] Review request: orthorobot - A perspective based puzzle game made using LOVE
https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2219 Jeremy Newton 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.
[Bug 2219] Review request: orthorobot - A perspective based puzzle game made using LOVE
https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2219 --- Comment #1 from Jeremy Newton 2012-04-18 05:01:18 CEST --- Note: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=802050 is now 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. You are the assignee for the bug.
[Bug 2286] New: Review request: mari0 - A recreation of the original Super Mario Bros with a portal gun
https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2286 Bug #: 2286 Summary: Review request: mari0 - A recreation of the original Super Mario Bros with a portal gun Classification: Unclassified Product: Package Reviews Version: Current Platform: All OS/Version: GNU/Linux Status: NEW Severity: normal Priority: P5 Component: Review Request AssignedTo: rpmfusion-package-rev...@rpmfusion.org ReportedBy: alexjn...@hotmail.com CC: rpmfusion-package-rev...@rpmfusion.org A complete from scratch recreation of the original Super Mario Bros. game with a focus on perfectly imitating the feel the 1985 classic gave us but with a portal gun and puzzle game mechanics from the popular Value game, Portal. Mari0 also has a 4-player coop mode, with everyone having their own Portal gun. This game is made with LOVE. Why not in Fedora: The license is non-free cannot be included in Fedora (CC-BY-NC-SA) SPEC: http://dl.dropbox.com/u/42480493/mari0.spec SPRM: http://dl.dropbox.com/u/42480493/mari0-1.6-1.fc16.src.rpm RPMLint: mari0.src: W: invalid-license CC-BY-NC-SA mari0.noarch: W: invalid-license CC-BY-NC-SA This can be ignored, as RPMLint doesn't recognize this specific License mari0.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary mari0 Not vital and can be fixed later. mari0.src: W: invalid-url Source0: mari0-extra.tar.xz Source0 is custom made: just a desktop file 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 4 warnings. -- 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.
[Bug 2286] Review request: mari0 - A recreation of the original Super Mario Bros with a portal gun
https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2286 Jeremy Newton 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.
[Bug 2216] Review request: Not Tetris 2 - Classic Tetris mixed with physics
https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2216 --- Comment #16 from Yajo 2012-04-18 16:05:22 CEST --- (In reply to comment #15) > Just a quick note though, I noticed you used a "convert" command. If you use > it, you need to add ImageMagick as a BuildRequire It has "BuildRequires: /usr/bin/convert". Is it not enough? -- 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.
[Bug 2216] Review request: Not Tetris 2 - Classic Tetris mixed with physics
https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2216 --- Comment #17 from Jeremy Newton 2012-04-18 18:17:18 CEST --- (In reply to comment #16) > (In reply to comment #15) > > Just a quick note though, I noticed you used a "convert" command. If you use > > it, you need to add ImageMagick as a BuildRequire > > It has "BuildRequires: /usr/bin/convert". Is it not enough? Ah I didn't see that. Though that does work, the convention is to use ImageMagick, which in turn installs GraphicsMagick. I don't see any rules or reasons not to do what you did, so I guess never mind to what I said. Note that: The only reason I can think of this not working is if convert is not explicitly installed into /usr/bin. Although this would only be an issue if the install location is changed in the future, and considering the complete move to /usr in F17, I doubt this will ever happen. -- 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.
[Bug 2206] Review request: sox-plugins-nonfree
https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2206 Richard 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.
[Bug 2269] Review request: ffmpeg-compat - ffmpeg compat libraries
https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2269 Richard changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|rpmfusion-package-review@rp |hobbes1...@gmail.com |mfusion.org | --- Comment #6 from Richard 2012-04-20 21:36:30 CEST --- Ok, about done with my full review. Just so you know since you're using the _isa macro with a "?", testing for it's existence is redundant. +: OK -: must be fixed =: should be fixed (at your discretion) ?: Question or clairification needed N: not applicable MUST: [+] rpmlint output: shown in comment. [+] 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: COPYING [+] spec file is in American English [+] spec file is legible [+] sources match upstream: md5sum matches (f8a49dea28bd33d3e5b12d1694ae8227) [+] package builds on at least one primary arch: Tested EL6 [N] appropriate use of ExcludeArch [+] all build requirements in BuildRequires [N] spec file handles locales properly [+] ldconfig in %post and %postun [+] no bundled copies of system libraries [+] no relocatable packages [+] package owns all directories that it creates [+] no files listed twice in %files [+] proper permissions on files [+] consistent use of macros [+] code or permissible content [N] large documentation in -doc [+] no runtime dependencies in %doc [+] header files in -devel [N] static libraries in -static [N] .so in -devel [N] -devel requires main package [+] package contains no libtool archives [N] 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 [N] description and summary contains available translations [+] package builds in mock [+] package builds on all supported arches: Tested x86_64 [?] package functions as described: Not tested [+] sane scriptlets [+] subpackages require the main package [+] placement of pkgconfig files [+] file dependencies versus package dependencies [N] package contains man pages for binaries/scripts *** 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. You are the assignee for the bug.
[Bug 2269] Review request: ffmpeg-compat - ffmpeg compat libraries
https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2269 Richard changed: What|Removed |Added 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.
[Bug 2269] Review request: ffmpeg-compat - ffmpeg compat libraries
https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2269 Richard changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks|3 |4 -- 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.
[Bug 2216] Review request: Not Tetris 2 - Classic Tetris mixed with physics
https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2216 --- Comment #18 from Yajo 2012-04-23 15:21:25 CEST --- (In reply to comment #14) > Well the version in Fedora right now is the official stable, there was just a > delay in the announcement of it. I just updated it a little quicker than > upstream updated their website ;) > As of now though, it's been announced, so there should not be any more > excuses; > upstream should be notified if they haven't fixed it yet. They know it, but seems like it will take some time to fix it. http://forum.stabyourself.net/viewtopic.php?p=20064#p20064 > I'll take a look once upstream gets it working with 0.8.0. Also I've assigned > myself for reviewing this, as I wish to get this included :) > Although I can't give it an official review until you get sponsored. Speaking about that... Can you sponsor me? Or anyone around here? I prefer in Fedora if possible, but I know no one from there (nor here)... -- 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.
[Bug 2237] Homer - live conferencing and more
https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2237 --- Comment #16 from Alec Leamas 2012-04-24 22:28:58 CEST --- Created attachment 863 --> https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/attachment.cgi?id=863 Configuration patch to use a (private) rpath Patches build system to use a rpath. The value of the rpath is just a token which is replaced during %prep. Sending this patch upstream could possibly interest them, but it should not be merged there. This kind of patches which need to be done at build time. -- 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.
[Bug 2237] Homer - live conferencing and more
https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2237
--- Comment #17 from Alec Leamas 2012-04-24 22:34:39
CEST ---
Created attachment 864
--> https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/attachment.cgi?id=864
Spec file patch to move libs out of %{_libdir}
The problem with the invalid-sonama warnings is that Homer installs private
libraries into %{_libdir}. This is not kosher, see
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Common_Rpmlint_issues#invalid-soname.
This patch moves the libs to a private directory %{_libdir}/homer and makes
related changes. With this, the invalid-soname messages can be ignored.
--
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.
[Bug 2237] Homer - live conferencing and more
https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2237
--- Comment #18 from Alec Leamas 2012-04-24 23:02:50
CEST ---
I got a coredump when starting Homer the first times, but after enabling cores
(ulimit -c unlimited) the program starts OK. Weird.
Why have you split the package into the main Homer and the libHomer support
package?. Is there any chance the lib package might be useful for other apps?
Or would it be simpler to just have a single Homer package? In any case, if the
libHomer package should be there it needs a better description which gives a
hint of it's use ("Homer support libs"?)
--
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.
[Bug 2237] Homer - live conferencing and more
https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2237 --- Comment #19 from Mario Santagiuliana 2012-04-24 23:27:18 CEST --- Alec! Thank you very much!!! From the last git snapshot on my rpms I recreate them and... $ rpmlint /var/lib/mock/fedora-16-x86_64/result/*.rpm Homer.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US softphone -> soft phone, soft-phone, sousaphone Homer.src: W: invalid-url Source0: Homer-Conferencing-0.22.gitdc4d1a8.tar.gz Homer.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US softphone -> soft phone, soft-phone, sousaphone Homer.x86_64: W: no-documentation Homer.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary Homer 4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 5 warnings. Spec URL: http://rpmbuild.marionline.it/SPECS/Homer.spec SRPMS URL: http://rpmbuild.marionline.it/SRPMS/Homer-0.22-5.20120424gitdc4d1a8.fc16.src.rpm Thank you very much Alec! I will contact the upstream and I will update the package to new snapshot or new version as soon as possible! -- 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.
[Bug 2237] Homer - live conferencing and more
https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2237
--- Comment #20 from Mario Santagiuliana 2012-04-24
23:29:44 CEST ---
(In reply to comment #18)
> Why have you split the package into the main Homer and the libHomer support
> package?. Is there any chance the lib package might be useful for other apps?
> Or would it be simpler to just have a single Homer package? In any case, if
> the
> libHomer package should be there it needs a better description which gives a
> hint of it's use ("Homer support libs"?)
Just to separate Homer library files from other executable files. Have a single
package should be more simple...yes.
I don't know if lib package could be useful for other apps...
--
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.
[Bug 2237] Homer - live conferencing and more
https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2237 --- Comment #21 from Alec Leamas 2012-04-24 23:33:25 CEST --- (In reply to comment #20) > Just to separate Homer library files from other executable files. Have a > single > package should be more simple...yes. > I don't know if lib package could be useful for other apps... >From what you say, I think the best would be to just have one package. -- 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.
[Bug 2237] Homer - live conferencing and more
https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2237 --- Comment #22 from Alec Leamas 2012-04-24 23:50:52 CEST --- The source is also a problem, you have different cases depending on if the source is a "regular" source or from git. Basically, they should be the same. I suggest that you pack the git sources the same way as the original i. e., without a top directory and always use %setup -c. -- 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.
[Bug 2237] Homer - live conferencing and more
https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2237 --- Comment #23 from Mario Santagiuliana 2012-04-26 14:13:28 CEST --- Update package follow Alec suggestions: SPEC: http://rpmbuild.marionline.it/SPECS/Homer.spec SRPMS: http://rpmbuild.marionline.it/SRPMS/Homer-0.22-6.20120426git908f269.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.
[Bug 2237] Homer - live conferencing and more
https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2237
--- Comment #24 from Alec Leamas 2012-04-26 14:36:26
CEST ---
Now, much better! ;)
Still problems with the comment how to generate the source
# cd Homer-Conferencing
# git archive \\
#--format=tar.gz \\
#-o ../Homer-Conferencing-git3e38c5a.tar.gz \\
#master
Source0:%{name}-Conferencing-%{version}.git%{git_commit}.tar.gz
The argument to -o is not the same as Source0: i. e., it will not create the
same file. Also, and more important, checking out a branch will give a random
commit. What you want to do here is to checkout a specific commit, not a
branch. Checking out a branch also resets file modification dates; ee don't
want that.
Besides, why call the git source Home-Conferencing-* when upstream source is
named Homer-Source-*?
My proposal:
# git archive --format=tar.gz -o ../%%{SOURCE0} %%{git_commit}
Source0:%{name}-Source-%{version}.git%{git_commit}.tar.gz
I suggest that you leave this as-is waiting for a complete review.
--
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.
[Bug 2298] New: Review request: fceux - A cross platform, NTSC and PAL Famicom/NES emulator
https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2298 Bug #: 2298 Summary: Review request: fceux - A cross platform, NTSC and PAL Famicom/NES emulator Classification: Unclassified Product: Package Reviews Version: Current Platform: All OS/Version: GNU/Linux Status: NEW Severity: normal Priority: P5 Component: Review Request AssignedTo: rpmfusion-package-rev...@rpmfusion.org ReportedBy: musur...@gmail.com CC: rpmfusion-package-rev...@rpmfusion.org http://www.lesloueizeh.com/musuruan/fceux.spec http://www.lesloueizeh.com/musuruan/fceux-2.1.5-1.fc16.src.rpm Description: FCEUX is a cross platform, NTSC and PAL Famicom/NES emulator that is an evolution of the original FCE Ultra emulator. Over time FCE Ultra had separated into many separate branches. The concept behind FCEUX is to merge elements from FCE Ultra, FCEU rerecording, FCEUXD, FCEUXDSP, and FCEU-mm into a single branch of FCEU. As the X implies, it is an all-encompassing FCEU emulator that gives the best of all worlds for the casual player, the ROM-hacking community, Lua Scripters, and the Tool-Assisted Speedrun Community. Why this package is not eligible to be included in Fedora: It's an emulator Rpmlint output: Output is clean apart from many "incorrect-fsf-address". Already opened a bug upstream. https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=113536&aid=3521643&group_id=13536 Notes: This package will obsolete fceultra. When it will be in RPM Fusion, fceultra and gfceu will be retired. -- 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.
[Bug 2298] Review request: fceux - A cross platform, NTSC and PAL Famicom/NES emulator
https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2298 Andrea Musuruane 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.
[Bug 2237] Homer - live conferencing and more
https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2237 --- Comment #25 from Mario Santagiuliana 2012-04-26 16:31:33 CEST --- Ok, I will change the comment as soon as I have an official review with other fix or when there is a new version of Homer ok? Thank you very much! -- 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.
[Bug 2017] Review request: gnome-shell-extension-weather - An extension for displaying weather notifications in GNOME Shell
https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2017 --- Comment #24 from Christian METZLER 2012-04-27 02:47:08 CEST --- Hi ! I have updated my fork, it integrates now the sunrise and sunset times and the control of the wind unit. -- 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.
[Bug 2298] Review request: fceux - A cross platform, NTSC and PAL Famicom/NES emulator
https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2298 Jeremy Newton changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||alexjn...@hotmail.com Blocks|2 |3 AssignedTo|rpmfusion-package-review@rp |alexjn...@hotmail.com |mfusion.org | --- Comment #1 from Jeremy Newton 2012-04-27 16:48:17 CEST --- Nice! I never got around to this myself, good to see someone else taking an interest. I'll review this as soon as I have a chance. -- 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.
[Bug 2298] Review request: fceux - A cross platform, NTSC and PAL Famicom/NES emulator
https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2298 --- Comment #2 from Jeremy Newton 2012-04-27 17:46:17 CEST --- Package review: +: OK -: must be fixed =: should be fixed (at your discretion) ?: Question or clairification needed N: not applicable MUST: [+] rpmlint output 200 someodd errors from incorrect-fsf-address, though this has been addressed upstream, so no problems. [+] follows package naming guidelines [+] spec file base name matches package name [+] package meets the packaging guidelines [+] package uses a Fedora approved license: [-] license field matches the actual license. The follow files were not picked up as GPLv2+ in licensecheck: fceu2.1.5/src/emufile.cpp: MIT/X11 (BSD like) fceu2.1.5/src/emufile.h: MIT/X11 (BSD like) fceu2.1.5/src/drivers/common/hq3x.cpp: LGPL (v2.1 or later) fceu2.1.5/src/drivers/common/nes_ntsc_impl.h: LGPL (v2.1 or later) fceu2.1.5/src/drivers/common/nes_ntsc.c: LGPL (v2.1 or later) fceu2.1.5/src/drivers/common/hq2x.cpp: LGPL (v2.1 or later) [+] license file is included in %doc: [+] spec file is in American English [+] spec file is legible [+] sources match upstream: md5sum matches (e8b20e62061b1a59d51b47c827bd) [+] package builds on at least one primary arch: [N] appropriate use of ExcludeArch [+] all build requirements in BuildRequires [N] spec file handles locales properly [N] ldconfig in %post and %postun [+] no bundled copies of system libraries [+] no relocatable packages [+] package owns all directories that it creates [+] no files listed twice in %files [+] 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 [+] 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 Didn't query [?] description and summary contains available translations No explicit need, no need to fix [+] package builds in mock: Works with i686 [+] package builds on all supported arches Works in x86_64 and i686 [+] package functions as described One game tested, no issues, perfect run time. [+] sane scriptlets [N] subpackages require the main package [N] placement of pkgconfig files [N] file dependencies versus package dependencies [+] package contains man pages for binaries/scripts COMMENTS: -The license issue should be fixed, with a license breakdown and all that. -I would suggest that patch 1 should be sent upstream, if it hasn't already. -Since this provides fceultra, gfceu is never removed upon update. Either the fceultra should be removed or an obsoletes gfceu should be added. -- 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.
[Bug 2298] Review request: fceux - A cross platform, NTSC and PAL Famicom/NES emulator
https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2298 --- Comment #3 from Andrea Musuruane 2012-04-27 19:35:22 CEST --- (In reply to comment #2) > Package review: Thanks for the quick review, Jeremy! > -The license issue should be fixed, with a license breakdown and all that. Both BSD and LGPLv2+ are compatible with GPLv2+. So it is perfectly fine for upstream to license the sources as GPLv2+. Please see, for example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/License_compatibility#GPL_compatibility > -I would suggest that patch 1 should be sent upstream, if it hasn't already. I haven't. I'll check if SVN HEAD doesn't yet have this change first. > -Since this provides fceultra, gfceu is never removed upon update. Either the > fceultra should be removed or an obsoletes gfceu should be added. OK. I will obsolete gfceu too. -- 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.
[Bug 2298] Review request: fceux - A cross platform, NTSC and PAL Famicom/NES emulator
https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2298 --- Comment #4 from Jeremy Newton 2012-04-27 20:13:14 CEST --- (In reply to comment #3) > (In reply to comment #2) > > Package review: > > Thanks for the quick review, Jeremy! No problem, if you have some time, you can return the favour :) https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=908 > > -The license issue should be fixed, with a license breakdown and all that. > > Both BSD and LGPLv2+ are compatible with GPLv2+. So it is perfectly fine for > upstream to license the sources as GPLv2+. > > Please see, for example: > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/License_compatibility#GPL_compatibility Sorry I didn't mean that there is a problem with the licenses, but merely that all should be included in the spec like so: >License: GPLv2+ and LGPLv2+ and MIT and a license breakdown should be included in the comments above or below it. If you need an example, take a look at this spec: http://dl.dropbox.com/u/42480493/pcsxr.spec -- 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.
[Bug 2300] New: Review request: freecad - A general purpose 3D CAD modeler
https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2300 Bug #: 2300 Summary: Review request: freecad - A general purpose 3D CAD modeler Classification: Unclassified Product: Package Reviews Version: Current Platform: All OS/Version: GNU/Linux Status: NEW Severity: normal Priority: P5 Component: Review Request AssignedTo: rpmfusion-package-rev...@rpmfusion.org ReportedBy: hobbes1...@gmail.com CC: rpmfusion-package-rev...@rpmfusion.org Blocks: 2 SPEC: http://dl.dropbox.com/u/34775202/freecad/freecad.spec SRPM: http://dl.dropbox.com/u/34775202/freecad/freecad-0.12-2.fc16.src.rpm Description: FreeCAD is a general purpose Open Source 3D CAD/MCAD/CAx/CAE/PLM modeler, aimed directly at mechanical engineering and product design but also fits a wider range of uses in engineering, such as architecture or other engineering specialties. It is a feature-based parametric modeler with a modular software architecture which makes it easy to provide additional functionality without modifying the core system. This package can not be in Fedora because it links with OCE which is non-free. Consequently, this package, which approved, must also go into the non-free repository. -- 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.
[Bug 2298] Review request: fceux - A cross platform, NTSC and PAL Famicom/NES emulator
https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2298 --- Comment #5 from Andrea Musuruane 2012-04-28 10:54:55 CEST --- (In reply to comment #4) > (In reply to comment #3) > > (In reply to comment #2) > > > Package review: > > > > Thanks for the quick review, Jeremy! > > No problem, if you have some time, you can return the favour :) > https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=908 I'll try to. > > > -The license issue should be fixed, with a license breakdown and all that. > > > > Both BSD and LGPLv2+ are compatible with GPLv2+. So it is perfectly fine for > > upstream to license the sources as GPLv2+. > > > > Please see, for example: > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/License_compatibility#GPL_compatibility > > Sorry I didn't mean that there is a problem with the licenses, but merely that > all should be included in the spec like so: > > >License: GPLv2+ and LGPLv2+ and MIT > > and a license breakdown should be included in the comments above or below it. > If you need an example, take a look at this spec: > http://dl.dropbox.com/u/42480493/pcsxr.spec I think you are wrong. "The License: field refers to the licenses of the contents of the binary rpm". Taken from: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:LicensingGuidelines#License:_field There is no doubt that the license of the of the binary RPM is GPLV2+. -- 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.
[Bug 2298] Review request: fceux - A cross platform, NTSC and PAL Famicom/NES emulator
https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2298 --- Comment #6 from Andrea Musuruane 2012-04-28 14:39:52 CEST --- http://www.lesloueizeh.com/musuruan/fceux.spec http://www.lesloueizeh.com/musuruan/fceux-2.1.5-2.fc16.src.rpm Changelog: - Obsoleted gfceu too - Notified upstream about underlinking -- 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.
[Bug 2298] Review request: fceux - A cross platform, NTSC and PAL Famicom/NES emulator
https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2298 Jeremy Newton changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks|3 |4 --- Comment #7 from Jeremy Newton 2012-04-28 17:12:07 CEST --- (In reply to comment #5) > I'll try to. Thanks :) > I think you are wrong. "The License: field refers to the licenses of the > contents of the binary rpm". Taken from: > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:LicensingGuidelines#License:_field > > There is no doubt that the license of the of the binary RPM is GPLV2+. Fair enough, I can accept that. 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.
[Bug 2298] Review request: fceux - A cross platform, NTSC and PAL Famicom/NES emulator
https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2298 Andrea Musuruane changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||33 --- Comment #8 from Andrea Musuruane 2012-04-28 17:26:43 CEST --- Package CVS request == Package Name: fceux Short Description: A cross platform, NTSC and PAL Famicom/NES emulator Owners: musuruan Branches: F-16 F-17 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.
[Bug 1539] Review request: pithos - A Pandora client for the GNOME Desktop
https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1539 --- Comment #18 from Silas Sewell 2012-04-29 18:47:54 CEST --- Update version and patch for recent protocol changes (FYI: patch calls third party server, see link below). SRPM: https://github.com/downloads/silas/rpms/pithos-0.3.16-2.fc16.src.rpm Patch (upstream): https://github.com/kevinmehall/pithos/commit/049a0360c92ce6760696cef3a3732d57c95ae75c Patch (RPM): https://github.com/silas/rpms/blob/64eff8e7d8427a29c60f08cb87c4597481aaca80/pithos/time-sync-hack.patch -- 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.
[Bug 2306] New: Rename VirtualBox-OSE to VirtualBox
https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2306 Bug #: 2306 Summary: Rename VirtualBox-OSE to VirtualBox Classification: Unclassified Product: Package Reviews Version: Current Platform: All OS/Version: GNU/Linux Status: NEW Severity: normal Priority: P5 Component: Review Request AssignedTo: rpmfusion-package-rev...@rpmfusion.org ReportedBy: ser...@serjux.com CC: rpmfusion-package-rev...@rpmfusion.org Spec URL: http://www.serjux.com/virtualbox/VirtualBox.spec SRPM URL: http://www.serjux.com/virtualbox/VirtualBox-4.1.14-3.fc16.src.rpm As bug #1826 reports, VirtualBox-OSE has change name to VirtualBox. Changelog: - Rename to VirtualBox, rfbz #1826 - Review spec with fedora-review. -- 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.
[Bug 2306] Rename VirtualBox-OSE to VirtualBox
https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2306 --- Comment #1 from Sérgio Basto 2012-04-30 10:23:02 CEST --- where I put review for VirtaulBox-kmod ? here in same review or open another review ? -- 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.
[Bug 2306] Rename VirtualBox-OSE to VirtualBox
https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2306 Sérgio Basto 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.
[Bug 908] Review request: Mupen64Plus - Emulates the Nintendo 64 game console
https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=908 --- Comment #10 from Andrea Musuruane 2012-04-30 10:52:06 CEST --- (In reply to comment #9) > I contacted Ian and asked if I could adopt this. It seems he is very busy and > say I'm free to adopt this, which I plan to do. Anyway, to my knowledge this > is > still the latest stable, although upstream is still very active. I built this > just find on my f16 machine so I have no need to change anything unless there > is issues with f17. > > There were no rpmlint errors except a dictionary warning and incorrect FSF > address errors. I'll contact upstream if this is not fixed in the latest beta. > As well, I'll look into seeing if the latest beta is feasible to replace this. > I'm pretty sure there isn't a GUI yet but I plan to look into community made > GUI's to see if anything make it's worth replacing version 1.5. Can we close this ticket as RESOLVED WONTFIX if Ian can't continue this review request? Jeremy can you open a new ticket with your review request? Moreover, mupen64plus v1.99.5 is out since last March. Why not packaging this version? It has tons of fixes and improvements since v1.5. -- 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.
[Bug 908] Review request: Mupen64Plus - Emulates the Nintendo 64 game console
https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=908 --- Comment #11 from Jeremy Newton 2012-04-30 17:09:12 CEST --- (In reply to comment #10) > (In reply to comment #9) > > I contacted Ian and asked if I could adopt this. It seems he is very busy > > and > > say I'm free to adopt this, which I plan to do. Anyway, to my knowledge > > this is > > still the latest stable, although upstream is still very active. I built > > this > > just find on my f16 machine so I have no need to change anything unless > > there > > is issues with f17. > > > > There were no rpmlint errors except a dictionary warning and incorrect FSF > > address errors. I'll contact upstream if this is not fixed in the latest > > beta. > > As well, I'll look into seeing if the latest beta is feasible to replace > > this. > > I'm pretty sure there isn't a GUI yet but I plan to look into community made > > GUI's to see if anything make it's worth replacing version 1.5. > > Can we close this ticket as RESOLVED WONTFIX if Ian can't continue this review > request? Jeremy can you open a new ticket with your review request? Sure but If I don't manage to do it today, I'll have to make it in a few days because I won't be home or even near a Fedora computer connected to the internet for that matter. I'll mark this as RESOLVED MOVED and make a comment referring to the new bug when I make the new request. > Moreover, mupen64plus v1.99.5 is out since last March. Why not packaging this > version? It has tons of fixes and improvements since v1.5. The main reason is due to the lack of some prominent features, such as a GUI, various joystick options, stability, etc. from when I last tried it. I figure this is because according to the developers, 1.5 is considered the latest stable, and the 1.9.x series a beta series. I wouldn't mind packaging the beta, but I'll have to take a look at the latest, along with the available front-ends to see if the features are fixed or good enough to be worth packaging. -- 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.
[Bug 2298] Review request: fceux - A cross platform, NTSC and PAL Famicom/NES emulator
https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2298 Nicolas Chauvet 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.
[Bug 2306] Rename VirtualBox-OSE to VirtualBox
https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2306 --- Comment #2 from Naveed Hasan 2012-04-30 20:53:55 CEST --- Small detail from a cursory look at the spec file: Should we remove -OSE- from the Source# and Patch# file names in this process as well? -- 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.
[Bug 2306] Rename VirtualBox-OSE to VirtualBox
https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2306 --- Comment #3 from Sérgio Basto 2012-04-30 21:18:35 CEST --- (In reply to comment #2) > Small detail from a cursory look at the spec file: Should we remove -OSE- from > the Source# and Patch# file names in this process as well? yes I will do on one second step, for now is much more simple use same sources and same patches names. I plan do only branches on F17 and devel, therefore F16 will still VirtualBox-OSE, and if we need update it, we have all the same files which will be much more simple, once I know that F15 and F16 don't need updates I will rename all. -- 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.
[Bug 2306] Rename VirtualBox-OSE to VirtualBox
https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2306 --- Comment #4 from Sérgio Basto 2012-05-01 02:48:14 CEST --- Spec URL: http://www.serjux.com/virtualbox/VirtualBox.spec SRPM URL: http://www.serjux.com/virtualbox/VirtualBox-4.1.14-4.fc16.src.rpm and Spec URL: http://www.serjux.com/virtualbox/VirtualBox-kmod.spec SRPM URL: http://www.serjux.com/virtualbox/VirtualBox-kmod-4.1.14-2.fc16.src.rpm Plan summary: 1st - keep same maintainers in new branches, they have done a wonderful job and they may help . 2nd - Only do branches for F17 and devel. http://www.serjux.com/virtualbox/17/ have testing rpms. 3st - in a second step rename all patches and sources , after retirement of -OSE. -- 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.
[Bug 2306] Rename VirtualBox-OSE to VirtualBox
https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2306 Mario Santagiuliana changed: What|Removed |Added CC||fed...@marionline.it --- Comment #5 from Mario Santagiuliana 2012-05-01 10:02:08 CEST --- Sorry, why not use kmod-VirtualBox instead VirtualBox-kmod? A lot of users know kmod-xx packages so should be easiest to remember kmod-VirtualBox, for users... -- 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.
[Bug 2306] Rename VirtualBox-OSE to VirtualBox
https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2306 --- Comment #6 from Nicolas Chauvet 2012-05-01 11:14:43 CEST --- (In reply to comment #5) > Sorry, why not use kmod-VirtualBox instead VirtualBox-kmod? A lot of users > know This is internal kitchen. users still have to use kmod-VirtualBox or kmod-VirtualBox-PAE -- 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.
[Bug 2306] Rename VirtualBox-OSE to VirtualBox
https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2306 --- Comment #7 from Mario Santagiuliana 2012-05-01 11:26:41 CEST --- 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. You are the assignee for the bug.
[Bug 1539] Review request: pithos - A Pandora client for the GNOME Desktop
https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1539 --- Comment #19 from Silas Sewell 2012-05-02 04:23:47 CEST --- SRPM: https://github.com/downloads/silas/rpms/pithos-0.3.17-0.1.d66ff7a.fc16.src.rpm Update to pre-release version that uses Pandora's JSON api and doesn't talk to a third-party server. -- 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.
[Bug 1845] Review request: miro - Internet TV Player
https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1845 Michel Alexandre Salim changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED Resolution||FIXED --- Comment #49 from Michel Alexandre Salim 2012-05-05 06:50:18 CEST --- Forgot to close it, sorry. Closing now -- 5.0 will land soon as well. -- 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.
[Bug 2306] Rename VirtualBox-OSE to VirtualBox
https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2306 --- Comment #8 from Sérgio Basto 2012-05-05 17:13:29 CEST --- Hi, I'd like do this before F17 release, F17 should be out in the end of the month. Or decide what to do with bug 1826 ? , close with won't fix or close with fixed when we close this review. -- 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.
[Bug 2306] Rename VirtualBox-OSE to VirtualBox
https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2306 --- Comment #9 from Naveed Hasan 2012-05-05 19:26:15 CEST --- (In reply to comment #8) > Hi, I'd like do this before F17 release, F17 should be out in the end of the > month. In support of Sérgio, some examples of Red Hat rename package review requests - https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=596866 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=476483 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=236652 They're generally quick and painless. -- 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.
[Bug 2319] New: vdr-markad - Advanced commercial detection for VDR
https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2319 Bug #: 2319 Summary: vdr-markad - Advanced commercial detection for VDR Classification: Unclassified Product: Package Reviews Version: Current Platform: All OS/Version: GNU/Linux Status: NEW Severity: normal Priority: P5 Component: Review Request AssignedTo: rpmfusion-package-rev...@rpmfusion.org ReportedBy: mgans...@alice.de CC: rpmfusion-package-rev...@rpmfusion.org MarkAd marks advertisements in VDR recordings. Spec URL: https://www.disk.dsl.o2online.de/FclyPlh/RPMS/VDR/vdr-markad/vdr-markad.spec?a=O-Q4PNI_iME SRPM URL: https://www.disk.dsl.o2online.de/FclyPlh/RPMS/VDR/vdr-markad/vdr-markad-0.1.3-1.20120310git.fc17.src.rpm?a=owyOa7DNhfE rpmlint output: rpmlint vdr-markad-0.1.3-1.20120310git.fc17.x86_64.rpm vdr-markad.x86_64: I: enchant-dictionary-not-found en_US vdr-markad.x86_64: W: unstripped-binary-or-object /usr/lib64/vdr/libvdr-markad.so.1.7.27 vdr-markad.x86_64: W: unstripped-binary-or-object /usr/bin/markad vdr-markad.x86_64: W: non-standard-uid /etc/vdr/plugins/markad vdr vdr-markad.x86_64: W: non-standard-uid /usr/share/locale/sk_SK/LC_MESSAGES/vdr-markad.mo vdr vdr-markad.x86_64: W: non-standard-uid /usr/share/locale/it_IT/LC_MESSAGES/vdr-markad.mo vdr vdr-markad.x86_64: W: non-standard-uid /usr/share/locale/de_DE/LC_MESSAGES/vdr-markad.mo vdr vdr-markad.x86_64: W: non-standard-uid /usr/share/locale/es_ES/LC_MESSAGES/vdr-markad.mo vdr vdr-markad.x86_64: W: non-standard-uid /usr/share/locale/fi_FI/LC_MESSAGES/vdr-markad.mo vdr vdr-markad.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary markad 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 9 warnings. -- 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.
[Bug 2124] Review request: libva-xvba-driver - HW video decode support for XvBA platforms
https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2124 Lorenzo Pistone changed: What|Removed |Added CC||blaffabla...@gmail.com --- Comment #1 from Lorenzo Pistone 2012-05-06 17:39:42 CEST --- I'm looking forward for this package. If testing is needed, I can help. I have a radeon hd 4650, and xvba worked on Ubuntu. -- 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.
[Bug 2306] Rename VirtualBox-OSE to VirtualBox
https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2306 --- Comment #10 from Sérgio Basto 2012-05-07 02:44:47 CEST --- Created attachment 872 --> https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/attachment.cgi?id=872 current patch to rename VirtualBox -- 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.
[Bug 2306] Rename VirtualBox-OSE to VirtualBox
https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2306 --- Comment #11 from Sérgio Basto 2012-05-07 02:46:40 CEST --- Created attachment 873 --> https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/attachment.cgi?id=873 current patch to rename VirtualBox-kmod Hi, here is the state of art to rename VirtualBox. -- 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.
[Bug 2319] vdr-markad - Advanced commercial detection for VDR
https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2319 --- Comment #1 from MartinKG 2012-05-07 08:28:29 CEST --- New packages SRPM URL: https://www.disk.dsl.o2online.de/FclyPlh/RPMS/VDR/vdr-markad/vdr-markad-0.1.3-2.20120504git.fc17.src.rpm?a=VpD0aRAPkcg Spec URL: https://www.disk.dsl.o2online.de/FclyPlh/RPMS/VDR/vdr-markad/vdr-markad.spec?a=GvSk_pUblyY rpmlint vdr-markad-0.1.3-2.20120504git.fc17.x86_64.rpm vdr-markad.x86_64: I: enchant-dictionary-not-found en_US vdr-markad.x86_64: W: unstripped-binary-or-object /usr/lib64/vdr/libvdr-markad.so.1.7.27 vdr-markad.x86_64: W: unstripped-binary-or-object /usr/bin/markad vdr-markad.x86_64: W: non-standard-uid /etc/vdr/plugins/markad vdr vdr-markad.x86_64: W: non-standard-uid /usr/share/locale/sk_SK/LC_MESSAGES/vdr-markad.mo vdr vdr-markad.x86_64: W: non-standard-uid /usr/share/locale/it_IT/LC_MESSAGES/vdr-markad.mo vdr vdr-markad.x86_64: W: non-standard-uid /usr/share/locale/de_DE/LC_MESSAGES/vdr-markad.mo vdr vdr-markad.x86_64: W: non-standard-uid /usr/share/locale/es_ES/LC_MESSAGES/vdr-markad.mo vdr vdr-markad.x86_64: W: non-standard-uid /usr/share/locale/fi_FI/LC_MESSAGES/vdr-markad.mo vdr vdr-markad.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary markad 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 9 warnings. -- 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.
[Bug 2124] Review request: libva-xvba-driver - HW video decode support for XvBA platforms
https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2124 --- Comment #2 from Nicolas Chauvet 2012-05-07 10:00:46 CEST --- Last time I've checked, there were colour issue with vaapi with xvba backend. Which player did you tried ? and which codec was used ? There is also a maintaince issue, since the previous Author stopped working on other vaapi backend. -- 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.
[Bug 2319] vdr-markad - Advanced commercial detection for VDR
https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2319 --- Comment #2 from Nicolas Chauvet 2012-05-07 10:05:29 CEST --- Thx for the review Actually there are several vdr components in RPM Fusion seeking for a new maintainer. You can browse bugzilla for existing reports. but vdr-mp3 for example Fails to Build From Sources. It would be nice if you can work on it. I cannot handle the review until next week. If someone wants to take over ? -- 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.
[Bug 2124] Review request: libva-xvba-driver - HW video decode support for XvBA platforms
https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2124 --- Comment #3 from Lorenzo Pistone 2012-05-07 10:26:10 CEST --- I used vlc (from git, it was somewhat before 2.0), and the codec was H.264. I can't remember if I tried the other hw accelerated codecs (and i don't even remember which of them my card supports). From my experience, I'd say that this plugin is pretty mature. On Ubuntu there was a packaging issue, that is lbva couldn't find on its own the fglrx_drv_video.so file, and one had to set globally the LIBVA_* variables. But here on Fedora 16 vainfo tries to access the right path (/usr/lib64/dri/fglrx_drv_video.so), so I guess it would work out of the box. -- 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.
[Bug 2319] vdr-markad - Advanced commercial detection for VDR
https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2319 --- Comment #3 from MartinKG 2012-05-07 20:32:54 CEST --- New rpms: SRPM URL: https://www.disk.dsl.o2online.de/FclyPlh/RPMS/VDR/vdr-markad/vdr-markad-0.1.3-3.20120504git.fc17.src.rpm?a=3r3sCFJsrJg SPEC URL: https://www.disk.dsl.o2online.de/FclyPlh/RPMS/VDR/vdr-markad/?a=NWfWmm_4q3U rpmlint output: rpmlint vdr-markad-0.1.3-3.20120504git.fc17.x86_64.rpm vdr-markad.x86_64: I: enchant-dictionary-not-found en_US vdr-markad.x86_64: W: unstripped-binary-or-object /usr/lib64/vdr/libvdr-markad.so.1.7.27 vdr-markad.x86_64: W: unstripped-binary-or-object /usr/bin/markad vdr-markad.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary markad 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 3 warnings. -- 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.
[Bug 2319] vdr-markad - Advanced commercial detection for VDR
https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2319 --- Comment #4 from MartinKG 2012-05-08 20:48:10 CEST --- Spec URL: https://www.disk.dsl.o2online.de/FclyPlh/RPMS/VDR/vdr-markad/vdr-markad.spec?a=RYqwwG91-bU SRPM URL: https://www.disk.dsl.o2online.de/FclyPlh/RPMS/VDR/vdr-markad/vdr-markad-0.1.3-4.20120504git.fc17.src.rpm?a=9RiIG_CiOR0 rpmlint output: rpmlint vdr-markad-0.1.3-4.20120504git.fc17.src.rpm vdr-markad.src: I: enchant-dictionary-not-found en_US vdr-markad.src: W: invalid-url Source0: vdr-plugin-markad_0.1.3.99+cvs20120504.tar.gz 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings. rpmlint vdr-markad-0.1.3-4.20120504git.fc17.x86_64.rpm vdr-markad.x86_64: I: enchant-dictionary-not-found en_US vdr-markad.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary markad 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings. -- 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.
[Bug 2298] Review request: fceux - A cross platform, NTSC and PAL Famicom/NES emulator
https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2298 Andrea Musuruane changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED Resolution||FIXED --- Comment #9 from Andrea Musuruane 2012-05-11 12:46:39 CEST --- Built and published. Closing. -- 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.
[Bug 2286] Review request: mari0 - A recreation of the original Super Mario Bros with a portal gun
https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2286 Alec Leamas changed: What|Removed |Added CC||leamas.a...@gmail.com --- Comment #1 from Alec Leamas 2012-05-12 13:39:02 CEST --- Hi! :) I'm testing fedora-review... seems that here is a missing BR: for desktop-file-utils, my mock build fails -- 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.
[Bug 2286] Review request: mari0 - A recreation of the original Super Mario Bros with a portal gun
https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2286
Andrea Musuruane changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||musur...@gmail.com
--- Comment #2 from Andrea Musuruane 2012-05-12 14:08:46
CEST ---
There is also problem with the icon.
If you install the icon in %{_datadir}/pixmaps/%{name}.png the Icon Cache
scriptlets are not required.
But if you install the icon in %{_datadir}/icons/hicolor/*/apps/%{name}.png
then they are required. AFAIK installing the icon in hicolor is strongly
suggested. Moreover, if you do so, you also need to require hicolor-icon-theme.
--
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.
[Bug 2325] New: vdr-mp3 - Sound playback plugin for VDR
https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2325 Bug #: 2325 Summary: vdr-mp3 - Sound playback plugin for VDR Classification: Unclassified Product: Package Reviews Version: Current Platform: All OS/Version: GNU/Linux Status: NEW Severity: normal Priority: P5 Component: Review Request AssignedTo: rpmfusion-package-rev...@rpmfusion.org ReportedBy: mgans...@alice.de CC: rpmfusion-package-rev...@rpmfusion.org The MP3 plugin adds audio playback capability to VDR. SRPM URL: https://www.disk.dsl.o2online.de/FclyPlh/RPMS/VDR/vdr-mp3/vdr-mp3-0.10.2-8.fc17.src.rpm?a=-dmE6h-3kqE Spec URL: https://www.disk.dsl.o2online.de/FclyPlh/RPMS/VDR/vdr-mp3/vdr-mp3.spec?a=oWmXWS5Ke64 rpmlint output: rpmlint vdr-mp3-0.10.2-8.fc17.x86_64.rpm vdr-mp3.x86_64: I: enchant-dictionary-not-found en_US vdr-mp3.x86_64: W: percent-in-%post vdr-mp3.x86_64: W: dangerous-command-in-%post mv 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings. rpmlint vdr-mplayer-0.10.2-8.fc17.x86_64.rpm vdr-mplayer.x86_64: I: enchant-dictionary-not-found en_US vdr-mplayer.x86_64: E: zero-length /usr/share/vdr/DVD-VCD/DVD vdr-mplayer.x86_64: E: zero-length /usr/share/vdr/DVD-VCD/VCD 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 2 errors, 0 warnings. rpmlint vdr-mp3-0.10.2-8.fc17.src.rpm vdr-mp3.src: I: enchant-dictionary-not-found en_US 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. -- 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.
[Bug 2319] vdr-markad - Advanced commercial detection for VDR
https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2319 --- Comment #5 from MartinKG 2012-05-13 10:16:26 CEST --- upstream: Bugreport: COPYING have wrong fsf address # http://projects.vdr-developer.org/issues/974 Bugreport: missing manual page # http://projects.vdr-developer.org/issues/975 SRPM URL: https://www.disk.dsl.o2online.de/FclyPlh/RPMS/VDR/vdr-markad/vdr-markad-0.1.3-5.20120504git.fc17.src.rpm?a=TKji-jZ3cPk Spec URL: https://www.disk.dsl.o2online.de/FclyPlh/RPMS/VDR/vdr-markad/vdr-markad.spec?a=En1oINyijmg rpmlint output: rpmlint vdr-markad-0.1.3-5.20120504git.fc17.x86_64.rpm vdr-markad.x86_64: I: enchant-dictionary-not-found en_US vdr-markad.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary markad 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings. rpmlint vdr-markad-0.1.3-5.20120504git.fc17.src.rpm vdr-markad.src: I: enchant-dictionary-not-found en_US vdr-markad.src: W: invalid-url Source0: vdr-plugin-markad_0.1.3.99+cvs20120504.tar.gz 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings. -- 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.
[Bug 2017] Review request: gnome-shell-extension-weather - An extension for displaying weather notifications in GNOME Shell
https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2017 --- Comment #25 from Mattia Meneguzzo 2012-05-13 12:24:31 CEST --- IMPORTANT NEWS: Now I am a sponsored Fedora packager (please see https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=752169 ). More, I switched to the fork developed by Neroth ( https://github.com/Neroth/gnome-shell-extension-weather ), which now seems to be ahead of the one by simon04 in terms of completeness and features. So, here you are the Spec and the SRPM files (plus an RPM package for Fedora 17) of gnome-shell-extension-weather by Neroth: Spec URL: http://db.tt/H9ybFOd0 SRPM URL: http://db.tt/WVtOSDLR (RPM package for Fedora 17: http://db.tt/agAOcAdE ) Output of "rpmlint gnome-shell-extension-weather.spec ../RPMS/*/gnome-shell-extension-weather*.rpm ../SRPMS/gnome-shell-extension-weather*.rpm": gnome-shell-extension-weather.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US informations -> information, information's, in formations gnome-shell-extension-weather.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US informations -> information, information's, in formations 2 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings. -- 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.
[Bug 2325] vdr-mp3 - Sound playback plugin for VDR
https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2325 --- Comment #1 from MartinKG 2012-05-13 13:14:01 CEST --- SRPM URL: https://www.disk.dsl.o2online.de/FclyPlh/RPMS/VDR/vdr-mp3/vdr-mp3-0.10.2-9.fc17.src.rpm?a=JgttCR0ZwlE Spec URL: https://www.disk.dsl.o2online.de/FclyPlh/RPMS/VDR/vdr-mp3/vdr-mp3.spec?a=e0FZu9j4Z_Y rpmlint output: rpmlint vdr-mp3-0.10.2-9.fc17.src.rpm vdr-mp3.src: I: enchant-dictionary-not-found en_US 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. rpmlint vdr-mp3-0.10.2-9.fc17.x86_64.rpm vdr-mp3.x86_64: I: enchant-dictionary-not-found en_US vdr-mp3.x86_64: W: dangerous-command-in-%post mv 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings. rpmlint vdr-mplayer-0.10.2-9.fc17.x86_64.rpm vdr-mplayer.x86_64: I: enchant-dictionary-not-found en_US vdr-mplayer.x86_64: E: zero-length /usr/share/vdr/DVD-VCD/DVD vdr-mplayer.x86_64: E: zero-length /usr/share/vdr/DVD-VCD/VCD 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 2 errors, 0 warnings. -- 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.
[Bug 2017] Review request: gnome-shell-extension-weather - An extension for displaying weather notifications in GNOME Shell
https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2017 --- Comment #26 from Mattia Meneguzzo 2012-05-13 21:42:03 CEST --- And here's another new version: Spec URL: http://db.tt/buGEjGk5 SRPM URL: http://db.tt/2ZPBJI2W (RPM package for Fedora 17: http://db.tt/Dnqth2Rt ) Output of rpmlint: the same as in comment #25. -- 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.
[Bug 2325] vdr-mp3 - Sound playback plugin for VDR
https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2325 --- Comment #2 from MartinKG 2012-05-13 22:25:35 CEST --- took the older vdr-mp3 package from http://buildsys.rpmfusion.org/logs/fedora-17-rpmfusion_free/12219-vdr-mp3-0.10.1-10.fc17/vdr-mp3-0.10.1-10.fc17.src.rpm as base. SRPM URL: https://www.disk.dsl.o2online.de/FclyPlh/RPMS/VDR/vdr-mp3/vdr-mp3-0.10.2-11.fc17.src.rpm?a=wuZvkUEV-Co Spec URL: https://www.disk.dsl.o2online.de/FclyPlh/RPMS/VDR/vdr-mp3/vdr-mp3.spec?a=tXXtdQ29pI4 rpmlint reports same messages. -- 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.
[Bug 2017] Review request: gnome-shell-extension-weather - An extension for displaying weather notifications in GNOME Shell
https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2017 Richard changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|rpmfusion-package-review@rp |hobbes1...@gmail.com |mfusion.org | --- Comment #27 from Richard 2012-05-14 00:53:40 CEST --- I'll take this since I'm using it already :) Don't forget to drop the NEEDSPONSORS blocker since you're sponsored now. Also, make sure you write on the mailing list since Nicolas (or whoever else can set you up) may not see it on the bug report. -- 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.
[Bug 2017] Review request: gnome-shell-extension-weather - An extension for displaying weather notifications in GNOME Shell
https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2017 Richard changed: What|Removed |Added 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.
[Bug 2017] Review request: gnome-shell-extension-weather - An extension for displaying weather notifications in GNOME Shell
https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2017 Mattia Meneguzzo changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks|30 | -- 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.
[Bug 30] Tracker : Sponsorship Request
https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=30 Mattia Meneguzzo changed: What|Removed |Added Depends on|2017| -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the assignee for the bug.
[Bug 2126] Review Request: libva-vdpau-driver - HW video decode support for VDPAU platforms
https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2126 Ken Dreyer changed: What|Removed |Added CC||ktdre...@ktdreyer.com --- Comment #1 from Ken Dreyer 2012-05-14 18:21:11 CEST --- It can go into Fedora? -- 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.
[Bug 2325] vdr-mp3 - Sound playback plugin for VDR
https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2325 --- Comment #3 from MartinKG 2012-05-14 18:39:59 CEST --- SRPM URL: https://www.disk.dsl.o2online.de/FclyPlh/RPMS/VDR/vdr-mp3/vdr-mp3-0.10.2-12.fc17.src.rpm?a=AaxHNkLENPM Spec URL: https://www.disk.dsl.o2online.de/FclyPlh/RPMS/VDR/vdr-mp3/vdr-mp3.spec?a=tXXtdQ29pI4 rpmlint output: rpmlint vdr-mp3-0.10.2-12.fc17.src.rpm vdr-mp3.src: I: enchant-dictionary-not-found en_US 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. rpmlint vdr-mp3-0.10.2-12.fc17.x86_64.rpm vdr-mp3.x86_64: I: enchant-dictionary-not-found en_US vdr-mp3.x86_64: W: dangerous-command-in-%post mv 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings. rpmlint vdr-mplayer-0.10.2-12.fc17.x86_64.rpm vdr-mplayer.x86_64: I: enchant-dictionary-not-found en_US vdr-mplayer.x86_64: E: zero-length /usr/share/vdr/DVD-VCD/DVD vdr-mplayer.x86_64: E: zero-length /usr/share/vdr/DVD-VCD/VCD 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 2 errors, 0 warnings. -- 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.
[Bug 2126] Review Request: libva-vdpau-driver - HW video decode support for VDPAU platforms
https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2126 --- Comment #2 from Nicolas Chauvet 2012-05-14 21:06:23 CEST --- Yes it "can" goes there license wise. So it might be better to have it reviewed in fedora. But a Legal advice would be welcomed. Until then, the previous package was already in RPM Fusion as vdpau-freeworld. This is the renamed version as the package is already dropped from the F-17 tree. -- 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.
[Bug 2017] Review request: gnome-shell-extension-weather - An extension for displaying weather notifications in GNOME Shell
https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2017 --- Comment #28 from Mattia Meneguzzo 2012-05-14 21:37:49 CEST --- Until I become an official RPMFusion packager (soon, hopefully), I'll go on releasing my builds here. Here's the latest version, which corrects issue https://github.com/Neroth/gnome-shell-extension-weather/issues/14 . Spec URL: http://db.tt/BizYFgXY SRPM URL: http://db.tt/Fobr8m6W (RPM package for Fedora 17: http://db.tt/g1E9vLLb ) Enjoy! -- 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.
[Bug 2017] Review request: gnome-shell-extension-weather - An extension for displaying weather notifications in GNOME Shell
https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2017 --- Comment #29 from Richard 2012-05-14 21:52:14 CEST --- Quick spec review: 1. Are you sure this requires Gnome 3.4? I've been running this extension on Fedora 16 with Gnome 3.1. 2. You need one blank line between your changelog entries for better legibility. -- 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.
