[Bug 30] Tracker : Sponsorship Request
https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=30 T.C. Hollingsworth t...@tchol.org changed: What|Removed |Added Depends on|1992| -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the assignee for the bug.
[Bug 1992] Review Request: winetricks - Package manager for Win32 DLLs and applications on POSIX
https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1992 T.C. Hollingsworth t...@tchol.org changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks|30 | --- Comment #23 from T.C. Hollingsworth t...@tchol.org 2012-07-16 14:32:38 CEST --- I'm now a Fedora packager. -- 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.
USBIP in kmod-staging
I've been looking at what it will take to get the USBIP kernel modules into kmod-staging, and it's just a added line. However, the official source of the USBIP userspace is also in linux-staging. To me, it seems like it would make more sense to split the userspace into a separate package as it doesn't need to track the kernel module, and it sure doesn't make sense to update it every time we push a new kernel! SUSE has just grabbed the source for the userspace from kernel git (see https://build.opensuse.org/package/view_file?file=usbip.specpackage=usbipproject=network, line 36), and I'm tempted to follow their example. Does anyone have an opinion one way or another? If not, I'll open a bug report asking kmod-staging to build the kernel modules and a review request for the userspace. Jonathan
Re: USBIP in kmod-staging
2012/7/16 Jonathan Dieter jdie...@gmail.com: I've been looking at what it will take to get the USBIP kernel modules into kmod-staging, and it's just a added line. However, the official source of the USBIP userspace is also in linux-staging. To me, it seems like it would make more sense to split the userspace into a separate package as it doesn't need to track the kernel module, and it sure doesn't make sense to update it every time we push a new kernel! This is already part of the standard kernel module packaging scheme: there is a kmod-staging-addons that is dedicated for userland tools. Please report a patch on the related component in bugzilla to ask the maintainer to enable. (and/or ask for co-maintainership). Nicolas (kwizart)
[Bug 1992] Review Request: winetricks - Package manager for Win32 DLLs and applications on POSIX
https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1992 --- Comment #24 from Nicolas Chauvet kwiz...@gmail.com 2012-07-16 18:56:10 CEST --- (In reply to comment #23) I'm now a Fedora packager. please create an account in fas.rpmfusion.org with the same email and apply to the cvsextras group. -- 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.
Re: Build Error (Job 13876): mplayer-1_1-1_el6 on el-6-rpmfusion_free
On 07/11/2012 03:26 PM, Orion Poplawski wrote: On 07/02/2012 03:11 PM, Richard Shaw wrote: On Mon, Jul 2, 2012 at 3:55 PM, Nicolas Chauvet kwiz...@gmail.com wrote: What I expect is that ffmpeg in EL-6 will better match with mplayer in F-17 as the ffmpeg version is the same. But others components are involved, so you have to test a mock built and do a minimal runtime test. Building now, but I have limited ability to actually test the resulting binary since I don't have a EL6 install available. I'd be happy to test any mplayer packages for EL6. Is what is in el6 updates-testing the latest, or are there other builds needing testing? mplayer and mencoder are working fine for me on EL6. Unfortunately transcode is not (https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2417), but hopefully that can be fixed without affecting mplayer. -- Orion Poplawski Technical Manager 303-415-9701 x222 NWRA, Boulder Office FAX: 303-415-9702 3380 Mitchell Lane or...@nwra.com Boulder, CO 80301 http://www.nwra.com
Re: USBIP in kmod-staging
On Mon, 2012-07-16 at 18:51 +0200, Nicolas Chauvet wrote: 2012/7/16 Jonathan Dieter jdie...@gmail.com: I've been looking at what it will take to get the USBIP kernel modules into kmod-staging, and it's just a added line. However, the official source of the USBIP userspace is also in linux-staging. To me, it seems like it would make more sense to split the userspace into a separate package as it doesn't need to track the kernel module, and it sure doesn't make sense to update it every time we push a new kernel! This is already part of the standard kernel module packaging scheme: there is a kmod-staging-addons that is dedicated for userland tools. Please report a patch on the related component in bugzilla to ask the maintainer to enable. (and/or ask for co-maintainership). Nicolas (kwizart) That's great. I'll go ahead and turn it into a patch for staging-kmod-addons and post it on bugzilla. Jonathan
Re: sdlmame-data-roms missing on F17
On Dom, 2012-07-15 at 19:57 +0100, Sérgio Basto wrote: On Dom, 2012-07-15 at 20:23 +0200, Julian Sikorski wrote: W dniu 15.07.2012 16:12, Sérgio Basto pisze: On Dom, 2012-07-15 at 12:24 +0200, Julian Sikorski wrote: W dniu 08.07.2012 22:43, Sérgio Basto pisze: On Sáb, 2012-07-07 at 08:44 +0200, Julian Sikorski wrote: W dniu 04.07.2012 19:28, Sérgio Basto pisze: On Ter, 2012-07-03 at 18:24 +0200, Julian Sikorski wrote: To me packaging this file makes about as much sense as packaging big buck bunny to test media players. If you would like to have this package in the repos, feel free to unretire it and take ownership. Some players indeed pack a little sample (Microsoft always pack some images) but is not same thing, normally we don't have roms in our computer. After think about, I prefer include the sample rom in sdlmame-data, will give us much _less_ work. I might join as co-mainteiner of sdlmame-data we can talk about this on IRC #rpmfusion , if you like . Thanks, I guess this can be done if it is only the robby rom, the other ones available at mamedev.org need to be downloaded from there IIRC. I'll look into it during the next update. Thanks for attending my request, I send in attached my proposal patch for sdlmame-data.spec, which is based on rpmfusion/sdlmame-data-roms/F-16/sdlmame-data-roms.spec We can get quickly robby rom and sdlmame-data-roms-README.ROMs with: yumdownloader --source sdlmame-data-roms --releasever=16 rpm -ivh sdlmame-data-roms-0120-3.fc11.src.rpm mv ~/rpmbuild/SOURCES/sdlmame-data-roms-README.ROMs sdlmame-data/devel mv ~/rpmbuild/SOURCES/robby.zip sdlmame-data/devel Thanks, I looked into it and it seems robby needs to be downloaded from the mamedev.org website exactly as the others: ROMs for Free Download Thanks to the generosity of some of the original creators of the classic games that MAME® can emulate, several games have been released for free, non-commercial use. It is our hope that in the future, we will be able to add more games to this list. Note: The ROMs on these pages have been approved for free distribution on this site only. Just because they are available here for download does not entitle you to put them on your own site, include them with your own distributions of MAME, or bundle them with your software, cabinet, or other item. To do that, you must obtain permission from the original owners. I think, all rooms except Robby Roto, based on sdlmame-data-roms-README.ROMs, you may read it on sdlmame-data-roms branch F-16, sdlmame-data-roms/F-16/sdlmame-data-roms-README.ROMs Due to copyright, we are only able to provide the Robby Roto romset, as it is the only one in the Public Domain. There are some other romsets available for non-commercial use here: http://www.mamedev.org/roms/ When it comes to others, you need to dump them from your PCBs. I can guarantee, that rom Robby Roto was distributed for several years in rpmfusion and I'm not aware of any problem. Best, Well, I wrote that file I'm only based on that, if you wrote it, you should know better than me. what can I say ? I don't understand if was shipped on F16 , Why shouldn't be on F17 ? but what you decide is good to me ..., I just tried improve rpmfusion. Just to clarify my point of view, if you have (new) legal concerns with the sample rom , we can drop it , you decided, I don't mind. If I did the package, I would just make a copy of what was already done. based on an email sent to Aaron Giles (he was MAME maintainer back in 2007). Maybe the copyright was different back then, or he was mistaken. Below is what the readme included in robby.zip says, it is definitely not public domain. From: Jay Fenton j...@fentonia.com To: gri...@mbnet.fi Date: 5.6.1999 2:11 Subject: Robby Roto ROM released for free non-commercial uses by author/owner Robby Roto ROM released for free (non-commercial uses) I used to write games for Bally/Midway in the 1970's and early 1980's. One of my less successful titles was Robby Roto. My contract with Midway specified that after shipments dropped below a certain level, that the rights to this game reverted to me. Needless to say, this has happened. I notice that Robby Roto is available on a few download sites for MAME. I would like the world to know that as the legal owner, the ROM images from Robby Roto are hearby declared free for unlimited non-commercial duplication and play by MAME users. -- Jay Fenton -- Sérgio M. B.
[Bug 1992] Review Request: winetricks - Package manager for Win32 DLLs and applications on POSIX
https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1992 --- Comment #25 from T.C. Hollingsworth t...@tchol.org 2012-07-17 03:15:41 CEST --- (In reply to comment #24) please create an account in fas.rpmfusion.org with the same email and apply to the cvsextras group. Done with username patches. (Same as upstream FAS. I'll update this review to the latest version soon. -- 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 1992] Review Request: winetricks - Package manager for Win32 DLLs and applications on POSIX
https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1992 --- Comment #26 from T.C. Hollingsworth tchollingswo...@gmail.com 2012-07-17 04:09:00 CEST --- Updated to latest upstream release and fixed to build on F17: Spec: http://tchol.org/rpmfusion/winetricks.spec SRPM: http://tchol.org/rpmfusion/winetricks-20120308-1.fc17.src.rpm Rpmlint output is identical. -- 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.
