Re: libraries missing on F22 and higher

[Ralf Corsepius]

On 12/29/2015 11:28 AM, Sérgio Basto wrote:


For example Mosaic-2.7-0.3.b5.fc11.x86_64 still works on Fedora 23
, but is a FTBFS since F12 or 13 . So fail to build is not
equivalent to fail to run .



Works but surely does not respect anymore all Packaging guidelines of
Fedora.


What guideline that is not respected ?


- Fedora packages must be buildable (An FTBFS alone is a violation of 
the FPG)
- fc12/13 were using different CFLAGS, paths and rpm. It's very likely 
these packages are vulnerable and unusable.

- Fedora packages must carry the current release %dist.

That said, packages which FTBFS since F12 should be removed and abandoned.

Ralf

[Bug 3582] Review request: yle-dl - Command-line tool to download videos from Finnish broadcasting company

[RPM Fusion Bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=3582

Sérgio Basto  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|NEW |RESOLVED
 CC||ser...@serjux.com
 Resolution||FIXED

--- Comment #3 from Sérgio Basto  2015-12-30 04:39:40 CET ---
the package is in 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 30] Tracker : Sponsorship Request

[RPM Fusion Bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=30

Bug 30 depends on bug 3582, which changed state.

Bug 3582 Summary: Review request: yle-dl - Command-line tool to download videos 
from Finnish broadcasting company
https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=3582

   What|Old Value   |New Value

 Status|NEW |RESOLVED
 Resolution||FIXED

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are the assignee for the bug.

[Bug 3774] Review request: freshplayerplugin - PPAPI-host NPAPI-plugin adapter

[RPM Fusion Bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=3774

--- Comment #26 from Greg  2015-12-30 04:55:40 CET ---
Created attachment 1538
  --> https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/attachment.cgi?id=1538
pdeated FreshPluginPlayer

-- 
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 3774] Review request: freshplayerplugin - PPAPI-host NPAPI-plugin adapter

[RPM Fusion Bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=3774

Greg  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

   Attachment #1538|pdeated FreshPluginPlayer   |updated FreshPluginPlayer
description||

-- 
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 2929] Review Request: smtube - A Youtube browser that can play and download Youtube videos

[RPM Fusion Bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2929

Sérgio Basto  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 CC||ser...@serjux.com
 Blocks|3   |

--- Comment #6 from Sérgio Basto  2015-12-30 05:10:14 CET ---
package is not anymore under review , and yes smtube is part of smplayer
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.

Re: libraries missing on F22 and higher

[Sérgio Basto]

On Ter, 2015-12-29 at 18:51 +0100, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
> On 12/29/2015 11:28 AM, Sérgio Basto wrote:
> 
> > > > For example Mosaic-2.7-0.3.b5.fc11.x86_64 still works on Fedora
> > > > 23
> > > > , but is a FTBFS since F12 or 13 . So fail to build is not
> > > > equivalent to fail to run .
> > > > 
> > > 
> > > Works but surely does not respect anymore all Packaging
> > > guidelines of
> > > Fedora.
> > 
> > What guideline that is not respected ?
> 
> - Fedora packages must be buildable (An FTBFS alone is a violation
> of 
> the FPG)
> - fc12/13 were using different CFLAGS, paths and rpm. It's very
> likely 
> these packages are vulnerable and unusable.
> - Fedora packages must carry the current release %dist.
> 
> That said, packages which FTBFS since F12 should be removed and
> abandoned.

we enter in loop , you are right , but Mosaic was an example how to
know if works (rpm knows :) , Mosaic is not in RPMFusion anymore but
still works, and it is exception , Mosaic is one of the first browsers
ever (before Netscape) , yeah not the best example. 


> Ralf
-- 
Sérgio M. B.

[Bug 3863] Review request: game-data-packager - Installer for game data files

[RPM Fusion Bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=3863

--- Comment #10 from Alexandre Detiste  2015-12-30 
07:04:57 CET ---
I moved the manpage installation in the upstream shared 'make install' rule.

-- 
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 3774] Review request: freshplayerplugin - PPAPI-host NPAPI-plugin adapter

[RPM Fusion Bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=3774

Sérgio Basto  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Blocks|3   |33

--- Comment #24 from Sérgio Basto  2015-12-30 04:35:38 CET 
---
(In reply to comment #22)
> Sorry? Tags?
SPEC: and SRPM: 

(In reply to comment #23)
> Sergio, anything left for me to do?

Package approved , sorry I forgot to approve this package, I want this go to
the list of new package approved , but we still take many time to enter in
RPMFusion , because new infrastructure still under construction , and depends
on definition of what is priority . 

Thanks.

-- 
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 3774] Review request: freshplayerplugin - PPAPI-host NPAPI-plugin adapter

[RPM Fusion Bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=3774

Sérgio Basto  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Blocks||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.
You are the assignee for the bug.

Re: Dealing with new approved packages for rpmfusion

[Sérgio Basto]

Hello,
On Ter, 2015-12-29 at 13:12 +0100, Hans de Goede wrote:
> Hi all,
> 
> Looking at:
> 
> https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=33

you have confused me, 33 is RF_CVSsync and 4 is RF_ACCEPT (accept means
approved ) so [1] have more package already approved 

[1] https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=4 

> There are quite a few new packages which are waiting
> to have CVS / git repos created for them and for them
> to be imported / added to the repos.
> 
> I know that with the new infra this process is currently
> on hold, but we are getting quite a big backlog of these,
> and I'm afraid that not dealing with these in a timely
> manner will scare of new contributors. So I wonder if
> it would be possible to have a temporary process to
> be able to process these while we're migrating to the
> new infra ?
> 
> Thanks & Regards,
> 
> Hans

This work of review packages and approve it , can be used by anyone so
is not waste of time (IMHO). And the more organized we are, less work
we have. So can we clean a bit [1] (all review requests) ? 
 

[1] 
https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/buglist.cgi?product=Package%20Reviews=Review%20Request=---_id=8635

Thanks,
-- 
Sérgio M. B.

[Bug 30] Tracker : Sponsorship Request

[RPM Fusion Bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=30

Sérgio Basto  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Depends on|3485|

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are the assignee for the bug.

[Bug 3693] Review request: girl - GNOME Internet Radio Locator

[RPM Fusion Bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=3693

Sérgio Basto  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 CC||o...@oka.no

--- Comment #8 from Sérgio Basto  2015-12-30 05:11:59 CET ---
*** Bug 3485 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***

-- 
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 3485] girl - GNOME Internet Radio Locator

[RPM Fusion Bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=3485

Sérgio Basto  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 CC||ser...@serjux.com
 Blocks|3, 30   |
 Resolution|WONTFIX |DUPLICATE

--- Comment #5 from Sérgio Basto  2015-12-30 05:11:59 CET ---
this package isn't under review anymore

*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 3693 ***

-- 
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 3774] Review request: freshplayerplugin - PPAPI-host NPAPI-plugin adapter

[RPM Fusion Bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=3774

Greg  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 CC||sp...@bigpond.com

--- Comment #25 from Greg  2015-12-30 04:50:24 CET ---
Addition links https://wiki.debian.org/PepperFlashPlayer &
om/i-rinat/freshplayerplugin/releases/tag/v0.3.4 

freshplayerplugin v0.3.4

graphics: add non-XRender fallback; enabled if XRender is not available,
but could be forced by enable_xrender=0 config parameter;
graphics: GLES2 emulation code from ANGLE is now used by default, which
relieves dependency on libgles2-mesa-dev package, as only GL and GLX are used;
graphics: mouse pointer is restored when moved outside of a plugin
instance;
audio: reduced latency is requested when capturing via PulseAudio.
Previously it was up to PulseAudio to decide which value to choose;
input: fast enough consecutive mouse clicks are converted to a doubleclick
event;
make install should do installation now;
it's possible to display freshwrapper version by adding show_version_info=1
into the config file. It would be shown as another context menu item (press
right mouse button on a Flash movie);
gdb is called from SIGSEGV handler (and some other signals too), and
instructed to save backtrace information to
/tmp/freshwrapper-backtrace-%d-%d.txt file where %d's are replaced with current
time and process id;
linker script is now used to filter visible symbols.

-- 
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 3863] Review request: game-data-packager - Installer for game data files

[RPM Fusion Bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=3863

--- Comment #4 from Alexandre Detiste  2015-12-29 
09:48:57 CET ---
>1) You mix Recommends and Suggests, according to:
>
>https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/WeakDependencies
>
>Suggests are pretty much ignored under Fedora atm. So you may want to change
>most Suggests into Recommends, at least for those Suggests which are available
>as Fedora packages in the standard Fedora repos.

The suggests vs recommends were carefully picked.

Suggests does the same thing on Debian (ie: about nothing but preventing
auto-removals and show this info in management UI's & packages website).

Some uncommon extractor is only needed for the Japanese demo of one game out of
200 for example.

'unzip' is only needed to patch Wolf3D 1.0 to Wolf3D 1.2 for example;
the newer zip archives are processed with native Python modules.

The tool has extensive runtime checking for missing tools and will
print out appropriate command needed to install missing tools.

See at the end of build.py:

http://anonscm.debian.org/cgit/pkg-games/game-data-packager.git/tree/game_data_packager/build.py#n2678


In the future we'd need to add suggests for 'steam', 'steamcmd'
& 'xdelta' and maybe even more.



steamcmd is a pain to make working, so you may want to copy this script:

http://anonscm.debian.org/cgit/pkg-games/steamcmd.git/tree/debian/scripts/steamcmd


> 3) The "%clean" section is obsolete, and also it is not intended to do a "make
> clean" but to remove the $RPM_BUILD_ROOT aka the "make install" DESTDIR.
Ok

> 2) The %install section is quite long, you say that you've added a "make
> install" target upstream, it would be good to use this in the next version
>
> 4) I see no license files in the %files sections. 

Both of those will be fixed in the proper v44 release tarball;
the first cross-distro release. ... but I'm not responsible
for publishing the releases.

I can ask to release now if that doesn't conflict against other
project goals; like the half-done inclusion of Unreal & UT support
https://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2015/12/msg00372.html .

Or if you prefer we can publish a git snapshot right away;
name it v44~rc1 or something.
(I'd prefer, but I don't know what that involves)

Greets

Alexandre

-- 
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 3863] Review request: game-data-packager - Installer for game data files

[RPM Fusion Bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=3863

--- Comment #5 from Alexandre Detiste  2015-12-29 
10:17:29 CET ---
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:NamingGuidelines#Pre-Release_packages

According to this pre-release could be:

game-data-packager-44-0.1

(there's no "%{alphatag}" 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.

Dealing with new approved packages for rpmfusion

[Hans de Goede]

Hi all,

Looking at:

https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=33

There are quite a few new packages which are waiting
to have CVS / git repos created for them and for them
to be imported / added to the repos.

I know that with the new infra this process is currently
on hold, but we are getting quite a big backlog of these,
and I'm afraid that not dealing with these in a timely
manner will scare of new contributors. So I wonder if
it would be possible to have a temporary process to
be able to process these while we're migrating to the
new infra ?

Thanks & Regards,

Hans

[Bug 3429] Review request: frobtads - Text interpreter for Tads games

[RPM Fusion Bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=3429

Hans de Goede  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Blocks|3   |4

--- Comment #4 from Hans de Goede  2015-12-29 13:08:11 
CET ---
Hi,

(In reply to comment #3)
> > -Why is %{_datadir}/frobtads/tads2 owned by the -devel pkg and not by the 
> > main
> > pkg ?
> 
> These files are include files used only by Tads 2 compiler. I placed header
> files and the compilers (+ the TADS includes) into the -devel subpackage.
> 
> On other hand, tads3/res/charmap/cmaplib.t3r is needed for runtime and in the
> main package.

Ok, thanks for the explanation. 

> Updated version:
> 
> Spec URL: http://scientific.zcu.cz/fedora/frobtads-1.2.3-1b/frobtads.spec
> SRPM URL:
> http://scientific.zcu.cz/fedora/frobtads-1.2.3-1b/frobtads-1.2.3-1.fc24.src.rpm

Looks good now. Next time you do a new version for a pkg-review please bump the
release field and at a changelog with the changes you made, just like you would
do in a Fedora pkg review. No need to respin for that now.

This package is approved.

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.

[Bug 3863] Review request: game-data-packager - Installer for game data files

[RPM Fusion Bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=3863

--- Comment #8 from Hans de Goede  2015-12-29 14:47:12 
CET ---
Hi,

(In reply to comment #7)
> Ok let's do that.
> 
> I've pushed the changes to my GitHub mirror, not yet on Debian official 
> server.
> This way I can still do a "git push --force" there if I want
> & official repos stay at 06f1b80.
> 
> https://github.com/a-detiste/game-data-packager/commit/8ce9d169311966056883afad716de7719d3a3808
> 
> http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=12343148

Looks good, but it seems that you've not yet switched to using "make install",
instead of the diy install ?

Regards,

Hans

p.s.

Be careful with submitting scratch builds of rpmfusion pkgs to
koji.fedoraproject.org please, in this case it is ok since game-data-packager
itself is 100% FOSS and the nonfree deps are the problem, but pkgs containing
any nonfree files should NOT be submitted to koji.fedoraproject.org

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.

[Bug 3863] Review request: game-data-packager - Installer for game data files

[RPM Fusion Bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=3863

--- Comment #9 from Hans de Goede  2015-12-29 14:49:21 
CET ---
Oh, my bad, I see that you did move to "make install", there just is quite a
bit of manual fixup to do afterwards.

The current:

https://github.com/a-detiste/game-data-packager/blob/master/tools/game-data-packager.spec

Looks good, I will try to do a full review of the pkg 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.

Re: libraries missing on F22 and higher

[Sérgio Basto]

On Seg, 2015-12-28 at 17:46 +0100, Antonio Trande wrote:
> On 12/28/2015 01:30 AM, Sérgio Basto wrote:
> > On Dom, 2015-12-27 at 11:51 +0100, Antonio Trande wrote:
> > > On 12/27/2015 09:04 AM, Tomasz Torcz wrote:
> > > > On Sun, Dec 27, 2015 at 01:48:23AM +0100, Ralf Corsepius
> > > > wrote:
> > > > > On 12/27/2015 01:11 AM, Sérgio Basto wrote:
> > > > > 
> > > > > > > Also, RPMFusion respects Fedora packaging guidelines or
> > > > > > > not?
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > yes we do
> > > > > 
> > > > > Aparently RPMFusion does not repect the FPG. Packages
> > > > > complying to the FPG are supposed to have been rebuilt for
> > > > > f23 and therefore to carry a package suffix of ".f23".
> > > > 
> > > > Not really. There are often mass rebuild during Fedora 
> > > > development, caused by various reasons: new GCC, change of
> > > > default compiler flags, hardening etc.  But mass rebuild is not
> > > > required for every Fedora release.
> > > > 
> > > 
> > > At last someone comprehends what I meant. Beyond .fc suffix (that
> > > could create confusion during Fedora upgrade however), here
> > > you're saying that RPMFusion packages must not be audited
> > > periodically, even for months, it's enough they work.
> > > 
> > > I ask again, how can we know if a package .fc(x) compiles/works
> > > fine on Fedora(x+n) without a rebuild?
> > 
> > Is the power of RPM , if fulfill all requires of package it works
> > (rpm -q --requires package)
> > 
> > For example Mosaic-2.7-0.3.b5.fc11.x86_64 still works on Fedora 23
> > , but is a FTBFS since F12 or 13 . So fail to build is not
> > equivalent to fail to run .
> > 
> 
> Works but surely does not respect anymore all Packaging guidelines of
> Fedora.

What guideline that is not respected ? 

-- 
Sérgio M. B.