Re: rpms/xine-lib-extras-freeworld/devel xine-lib-extras-freeworld.spec, 1.8, 1.9
On Thursday, 18 December 2008 at 10:23, Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski wrote: On Wednesday, 17 December 2008 at 18:44, Rex Dieter wrote: Author: rdieter Update of /cvs/free/rpms/xine-lib-extras-freeworld/devel In directory se02.es.rpmfusion.net:/tmp/cvs-serv26118 Modified Files: xine-lib-extras-freeworld.spec Log Message: hack around missing libraw1394-devel in ffmpeg-devel It's not missing! This built fine for me in local mock, so there's no need to add BR: libraw1394-devel. If you have a log from a failed build, I'll look at it. Sorry, I sent this before I noticed it was reverted in a subsequent commit. Ignore the noise, please. Regards, R. -- Fedora http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Rathann RPMFusion http://rpmfusion.org | MPlayer http://mplayerhq.hu Faith manages. -- Delenn to Lennier in Babylon 5:Confessions and Lamentations
Problems making LiveUSB of Omega
Hi, I downloaded the omega-10-desktop.iso which is the Omega 10 final release. The SHA1SUM matches. I tried to use the livecd-iso-to-disk utility to make a LiveUSB out of the ISO. However, I tried it twice, and both time it fails. The first time I tried, on booting from the pen drive my laptop said Missing Operating System. The second time, the SYSLINUX prompt came, but then a message was displayed saying linux: Can't find a kernel or something of that sort. Then I got a boot: prompt, and anything I typed there said foo is not a valid kernel image. The messages may not be exact. The same pen drive worked perfectly fine with Fedora 10. Please tell me how to make a LiveUSB out of the omega ISO. Thanks, Rohan -- Rohan Dhruva
Re: Problems making LiveUSB of Omega
Rohan Dhruva wrote: Hi, I downloaded the omega-10-desktop.iso which is the Omega 10 final release. The SHA1SUM matches. I tried to use the livecd-iso-to-disk utility to make a LiveUSB out of the ISO. However, I tried it twice, and both time it fails. The first time I tried, on booting from the pen drive my laptop said Missing Operating System. The second time, the SYSLINUX prompt came, but then a message was displayed saying linux: Can't find a kernel or something of that sort. Then I got a boot: prompt, and anything I typed there said foo is not a valid kernel image. The messages may not be exact. The same pen drive worked perfectly fine with Fedora 10. Please tell me how to make a LiveUSB out of the omega ISO. I frequently use LiveUSB's to test development snapshots and never had a problem. I just tried converting Omega 10 into a LiveUSB on a new key and it worked just fine. Not sure what the problem is. Are you trying with persistence? Can you give me the exact command you are trying? Might want to use --reset-mbr Rahul
Re: make mockbuild does not work
2008/12/17 Julian Sikorski beleg...@gmail.com: Hi, it seems that makefile.common wasn't updated to reflect the latest mock changes: $ LANG=C make mockbuild rpmbuild --define _sourcedir /home/jsikorski/cvs/rpmfusion/nonfree/bsnes/F-10 --define _builddir /home/jsikorski/cvs/rpmfusion/nonfree/bsnes/F-10 --define _srcrpmdir /home/jsikorski/cvs/rpmfusion/nonfree/bsnes/F-10 --define _rpmdir /home/jsikorski/cvs/rpmfusion/nonfree/bsnes/F-10 --define dist .fc10 --define fedora 10 --define dist .fc10 --define fedora 10 --nodeps -bs bsnes.spec Wrote: /home/jsikorski/cvs/rpmfusion/nonfree/bsnes/F-10/bsnes-0.038-1.fc10.src.rpm mock -r fedora-10-x86_64.cfg --resultdir=/home/jsikorski/cvs/rpmfusion/nonfree/bsnes/F-10/bsnes-0_038-1_fc10 /home/jsikorski/cvs/rpmfusion/nonfree/bsnes/F-10/bsnes-0.038-1.fc10.src.rpm ERROR: Could not find required config file: /etc/mock/fedora-10-x86_64.cfg.cfg make: *** [mockbuild] Error 1 I have attached a simple patch which brings it up-to-date (with mock-0.9.13, the one present in Fedora 10). Can you rewrite your patch according with the fact that rpmfusion mock cfg files will be : fedora-10-i386-rpmfusion_nonfree.cfg and fedora-10-i386-rpmfusion_free.cfg ?etc I think that having the problem reported via bugzilla, would be right thing. I hope to have mock cfg files ready really soon. Nicolas (kwizart)
Re: make mockbuild does not work
On Thu December 18 2008, Nicolas Chauvet wrote: Can you rewrite your patch according with the fact that rpmfusion mock cfg files will be : fedora-10-i386-rpmfusion_nonfree.cfg and fedora-10-i386-rpmfusion_free.cfg ?etc Why do you want to use a different naming scheme than all the other mock config files, which use this scheme: name-release-arch.cfg Regards, Till signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
Re: Problems making LiveUSB of Omega
On Thu, Dec 18, 2008 at 6:22 AM, Rahul Sundaram methe...@gmail.com wrote: I frequently use LiveUSB's to test development snapshots and never had a problem. I just tried converting Omega 10 into a LiveUSB on a new key and it worked just fine. Not sure what the problem is. Are you trying with persistence? Can you give me the exact command you are trying? Might want to use --reset-mbr Rahul Thanks to both of you. After trying with --reset-mbr, the LiveUSB works perfectly. Really good spin, thank you for making it! One question - pardon me for hijacking this thread. Is there any way to re-instate the fedora artwork after installation? Can I remove omega-release package, and install fedora-release and fedora-logos package to get back pristine fedora? -- Rohan Dhruva
Re: x264 and ffmpeg updates coming to rawhide
On Thu, 2008-12-18 at 09:39 +0100, Nicolas Chauvet wrote: transcode Fails on rawhide's libtool. I have tested it. patch attached is some bug report Anyway, the current version doesn't work.(even in stable release), so i'm asking commit right to co-maitain this package along with D.Juran. I will update rawhide to pre 1.1.0 as rc4 is known to work with newer ffmpeg/x264, and is expected to be stable anytime soon. Oh good, hadn't paid enough attention 'til now to notice that transcode was known to be busted. That's what's holding up a new mythtv build at the moment -- I've committed an svn trunk build of mythtv to devel --jarod
Re: make mockbuild does not work
2008/12/18 Gianluca Sforna gia...@gmail.com: On Thu, Dec 18, 2008 at 2:39 PM, Nicolas Chauvet kwiz...@gmail.com wrote: 2008/12/18 Till Maas opensou...@till.name: Why do you want to use a different naming scheme than all the other mock config files, which use this scheme: name-release-arch.cfg because the namespace is already taken. Assuming name would be rpmfusion_free who took it? What would be the namespace of the epel cfg files for rpmfusion then ? -- Gianluca Sforna http://morefedora.blogspot.com http://www.linkedin.com/in/gianlucasforna
[Bug 19] Review request: blcr - Berkeley Lab Checkpoint/Restart for Linux
http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=19
--- Comment #13 from Neal Becker ndbeck...@gmail.com 2008-12-18 16:45:45 ---
(In reply to comment #10)
This package surely needs some work. To start with:
* mock build fails on my x86_64. This is because you are trying to build and
include 32 bit libraries in a 64 bit package, which is not allowed. If one
needs 32 bit libraries (s)he can install blcr-libs.i386 in addition to
blcr_libs.x86_64 . So you should remove the libdir32 bits from the SPEC
file.
Fixed
* Leave a comment in the SPEC file for why you are using ExclusiveArch.
Done
* Try to avoid mixed ${ } %{_ } notation
Do you mean:
chrpath -d ${RPM_BUILD_ROOT}/%{_bindir}/cr_checkpoint
Suggested alternative?
* BR: perl and sed are not required since they are in the minimum build
environment.
Done
* Please remove the static library bits from the SPEC file.
I assume you mean to unconditionally build static libs for devel.
Done.
* rpmlint complains:
blcr-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation
blcr-testsuite.x86_64: W: no-documentation
blcr-testsuite.x86_64: E: script-without-shebang
/usr/libexec/blcr-testsuite/shellinit
For the first two, at least put the license file(s) in those packages.
The last one is actually about an empty files. Well it is not empty but when
you open it, it says #empty. Do you think we should include that file?
Fixed
* Patches should be explained and be submitted to upstream if they are not
strictly Fedora specific.
Done.
* The file tests/CountingApp.class is binary and should be removed during
%prep
It isn't installed, do we care?
* The file README.devel is not and should be packaged.
Why?
* Buildroot should be one of these:
%(mktemp -ud %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-XX)
%{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n)
%{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root
Done.
* Why do you have:
# Ensure we don't build for a i386
%ifarch i386
set +x
echo
==
echo ERROR: Cannot build BLCR for a generic i386. 2
echo ERROR: Add \--target `uname -p`\ (or similar) to the rpmbuild
command line. 2
echo
==
exit 1
%endif
in the SPEC file? Just remove i386 from ExclusiveArch and you should be fine.
Fixed.
* Please use
%post libs -p /sbin/ldconfig
%postun libs -p /sbin/ldconfig
Afaik, they'll work more efficient.
Done.
* We prefer %defattr(-,root,root,-)
Done.
* Each package must consistently use macros, as described in the macros
section
of Fedora Packaging Guidelines . Avoid inconsistencies such as:
%clean
rm -rf ${RPM_BUILD_ROOT}
%install
rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
Done.
* Disttag is missing.
What is this?
* The Fedora-specific compilation flag -fstack-protector is not passed to the
compiler. For a list of flags that should be passed to the compiler, please do
a
rpm --eval %optflags
I believe all flags are passed, because %configure is used. I just tested it,
and I believe -fstack-protector is passed.
* Parallel make must be supported whenever possible. If it is not supported,
this should be noted in the SPEC file as a comment.
Seems to break on this package, comment added.
* Shall we package the examples, tests directories?
I think it's good to have the testsuite.
--
Configure bugmail: http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are the assignee for the bug.
Re: make mockbuild does not work
2008/12/18 Gianluca Sforna gia...@gmail.com: On Thu, Dec 18, 2008 at 4:29 PM, Nicolas Chauvet kwiz...@gmail.com wrote: 2008/12/18 Gianluca Sforna gia...@gmail.com: On Thu, Dec 18, 2008 at 2:39 PM, Nicolas Chauvet kwiz...@gmail.com wrote: 2008/12/18 Till Maas opensou...@till.name: Why do you want to use a different naming scheme than all the other mock config files, which use this scheme: name-release-arch.cfg because the namespace is already taken. Assuming name would be rpmfusion_free who took it? What would be the namespace of the epel cfg files for rpmfusion then ? Very right. what about: rpmfusion_free rpmfusion_free_epel That 's a matter of choice. It doesn't seems more or less clear. Now as the work in done, the good news is you can use whatever you want! (using a symlink , but on your own system) Nicolas (kwizart)
[Bug 261] New: Review Request: buildsys-mockcfg-rpmfusion_free - Mock config files for the RPM Fusion Free Repository
http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=261 Summary: Review Request: buildsys-mockcfg-rpmfusion_free - Mock config files for the RPM Fusion Free Repository 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 Blocks: 3 Estimated Hours: 0.0 SPEC: http://rpms.kwizart.net/fedora/reviews/buildsys-mockcfg-rpmfusion/buildsys-mockcfg-rpmfusion_free.spec SRPM: http://rpms.kwizart.net/fedora/reviews/buildsys-mockcfg-rpmfusion/buildsys-mockcfg-rpmfusion_free-0.90-1.fc9.src.rpm Summary: Mock config files for the RPM Fusion Free Repository -- Configure bugmail: http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. You are the assignee for the bug.
[Bug 262] New: Review Request: buildsys-mockcfg-rpmfusion_nonfree - Mock config files for the RPM Fusion NonFree Repository
http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=262 Summary: Review Request: buildsys-mockcfg-rpmfusion_nonfree - Mock config files for the RPM Fusion NonFree Repository 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 Blocks: 3 Estimated Hours: 0.0 SPEC: http://rpms.kwizart.net/fedora/reviews/buildsys-mockcfg-rpmfusion/buildsys-mockcfg-rpmfusion_nonfree.spec SRPM: http://rpms.kwizart.net/fedora/reviews/buildsys-mockcfg-rpmfusion/buildsys-mockcfg-rpmfusion_nonfree-0.90-1.fc9.src.rpm Summary: Mock config files for the RPM Fusion NonFree Repository -- Configure bugmail: http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. You are the assignee for the bug.
mock config files available ( for fedora and epel )
As announced previously on this mail, http://lists.rpmfusion.org/pipermail/rpmfusion-developers/2008-October/001589.html The mock config files are available. https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=261 https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=262 They are meant to be tested for possible typo or other problem. Nicolas (kwizart)
[Bug 19] Review request: blcr - Berkeley Lab Checkpoint/Restart for Linux
http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=19
--- Comment #14 from Orcan Ogetbil orcanba...@yahoo.com 2008-12-18 17:40:12
---
(In reply to comment #13)
(In reply to comment #10)
* Try to avoid mixed ${ } %{_ } notation
Do you mean:
chrpath -d ${RPM_BUILD_ROOT}/%{_bindir}/cr_checkpoint
Suggested alternative?
$RPM_BUILD_ROOT or possibly just %{buildroot} . Actually, on a second thought,
this particular one is no big deal, you can leave it as is. Just try to stay
as consistent as possible with the macros in the future.
* Please remove the static library bits from the SPEC file.
I assume you mean to unconditionally build static libs for devel.
Done.
No, I meant: no static libraries at all.
Well if there's a definite need for static libraries. They should be built and
put in a -static subpackage.
* The file tests/CountingApp.class is binary and should be removed during
%prep
It isn't installed, do we care?
Yes, we do. It is a common practice to remove the precompiled binaries in %prep
* The file README.devel is not and should be packaged.
Why?
It contains information for people who might want to develop this software.
* Disttag is missing.
What is this?
Disttag is: %{?dist}
You usually add it to the end of Release tag.
For example:
Version: 2.5
Release: 3{?dist}
* The Fedora-specific compilation flag -fstack-protector is not passed to
the
compiler. For a list of flags that should be passed to the compiler, please
do
a
rpm --eval %optflags
Search for -fno-stack-protector in the build log. During the compilation of
certain files, that one is passed instead of -fstack-protector .
--
Configure bugmail: http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are the assignee for the bug.
Re: make mockbuild does not work
On 18.12.2008 16:55, Nicolas Chauvet wrote: 2008/12/18 Gianluca Sforna gia...@gmail.com: On Thu, Dec 18, 2008 at 4:29 PM, Nicolas Chauvet kwiz...@gmail.com wrote: 2008/12/18 Gianluca Sforna gia...@gmail.com: On Thu, Dec 18, 2008 at 2:39 PM, Nicolas Chauvet kwiz...@gmail.com wrote: 2008/12/18 Till Maas opensou...@till.name: Why do you want to use a different naming scheme than all the other mock config files, which use this scheme: name-release-arch.cfg because the namespace is already taken. Assuming name would be rpmfusion_free who took it? What would be the namespace of the epel cfg files for rpmfusion then ? Very right. what about: rpmfusion_free rpmfusion_free_epel That 's a matter of choice. [...] RPM Fusion supports EL EPEL, but I wouldn't call those repos RPM Fusion Free EPEL, because that would lead to confusion with the original EPEL. I don't think we or the original EPEL wants that. So we should use the term EPEL only when it comes to the topic for what our packages are build (e.g. EL EPEL) CU knurd
Re: x264 and ffmpeg updates coming to rawhide
On Wednesday, 17 December 2008 at 23:56, Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski wrote: On Thursday, 04 December 2008 at 21:31, Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski wrote: On Thursday, 04 December 2008 at 21:15, Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski wrote: On Thursday, 04 December 2008 at 14:17, Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski wrote: On Wednesday, 03 December 2008 at 19:06, Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski wrote: In the long-standing tradition of breaking stuff right after a new release, I'm going to update x264 and ffmpeg in the devel branch. x264 brings ABI and API changes (albeit minor). I haven't checked ffmpeg yet, but there's certainly an ABI version bump in libavcodec and probably some API changes as well. Right now x264 is blocked on some ppc compilation issue which I'm currently trying to fix with the help of one x264 developer. I'll keep you posted. OK, x264 build succeeded. Could someone test it on ppc/ppc64? ffmpeg build coming soon, too. It brings libavcodec ABI version bump and some API changes. Affected packages: [...] mencoder (mplayer) Still to do. I've just committed something that builds cleanly. Now waiting for Nicolas to build the new gpac so that I can rebuild x264 against that. Regards, R. -- Fedora http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Rathann RPMFusion http://rpmfusion.org | MPlayer http://mplayerhq.hu Faith manages. -- Delenn to Lennier in Babylon 5:Confessions and Lamentations
[Bug 13] Review request: rpmfusion-package-config-smart - RPM Fusion configuration files for the Smart package manager
http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=13 Kam Leo a1tmb...@netscape.net changed: What|Removed |Added CC||a1tmb...@netscape.net --- Comment #14 from Kam Leo a1tmb...@netscape.net 2008-12-18 23:29:47 --- (In reply to comment #13) (In reply to comment #12) Okay, I've added (nonfree) or (free) to the summary and fixed the %descriptions: SRPM: http://downloads.diffingo.com/rpmfusion/rpmfusion-free-package-config-smart-10-2.src.rpm I'm hoping to get some feedback from a regular smart user, if not I'll get a chance to fully test the split packages soonish. Built both the nonfree and free packages using rpmbuild -bb on fully updated Fedora 8 VMware client. No problems with either the build nor the install. Using smart-1.1-56.fc8. -- Configure bugmail: http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug.
[Bug 19] Review request: blcr - Berkeley Lab Checkpoint/Restart for Linux
http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=19 --- Comment #15 from Kevin Kofler kevin.kof...@chello.at 2008-12-18 23:57:27 --- The disttag is not mandatory. On the other hand, not using a disttag means you have to make sure the Release tag is distinct on each branch by hand, so it's strongly recommended to use one. -- Configure bugmail: http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the assignee for the bug.
[Bug 13] Review request: rpmfusion-package-config-smart - RPM Fusion configuration files for the Smart package manager
http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=13 --- Comment #15 from Kam Leo a1tmb...@netscape.net 2008-12-19 00:33:38 --- (In reply to comment #14) (In reply to comment #13) (In reply to comment #12) Okay, I've added (nonfree) or (free) to the summary and fixed the %descriptions: SRPM: http://downloads.diffingo.com/rpmfusion/rpmfusion-free-package-config-smart-10-2.src.rpm I'm hoping to get some feedback from a regular smart user, if not I'll get a chance to fully test the split packages soonish. Built both the nonfree and free packages using rpmbuild -bb on fully updated Fedora 8 VMware client. No problems with either the build nor the install. Using smart-1.1-56.fc8. No problem with uninstall either. -- Configure bugmail: http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug.
