Re: f32-free ftbfs list
On Thu, 2020-02-06 at 09:26 -0600, Michael Cronenworth wrote: > On 2/5/20 6:10 PM, Mamoru TASAKA wrote: > > Actually waylandpp-0.2.7-3.fc32 has the fix and now this waylandcpp > > is in > > f32 buildroot. The package used during mass build was waylandpp- > > 0.2.7-1.fc32 . > > I guess Rawhide is not getting fully composed right now. The -1 > package is still in > the repo. As usual, after one gcc mass rebuild, I guess, I'm joking a little , we may check here [1] , as I mention I prefer wait for the next compose after gcc mass rebuild, to mass rebuild RPMFusion , I will have more time to fix it (at least), it is a personal taste, it is very OK as we go now , don't think I'm thinking the opposite . Thanks for the work . I also haven't time soon to fix VirtualBox , add define _legacy_common_support doesn't work , and we need at least patch in attach . Best regards, [1] https://kojipkgs.fedoraproject.org/compose/rawhide/ latest-Fedora-Rawhide/ 2020-02-04 05:17 -- Sérgio M. B. --- ./Makefile.kmk.orig 2020-02-05 00:18:15.751562458 + +++ ./Makefile.kmk 2020-02-05 01:47:17.825333439 + @@ -169,15 +169,6 @@ ifeq ($(KBUILD_TARGET),darwin) Frameworks/$(qtmod).framework/$(qtmod)=>Versions/5/$(qtmod) \ Frameworks/$(qtmod).framework/Resources=>Versions/5/Resources) else # win x11 - if1of ($(KBUILD_TARGET), linux solaris) - ifndef VBOX_ONLY_BUILD - ifneq ($(VBOX_GCC_VERSION_CXX),) -ifeq ($(int-ge $(VBOX_GCC_VERSION_CXX),40400),) - $(error gcc >= 4.4 required when compiling against Qt5!) -endif - endif - endif - endif if defined(VBOX_WITH_ORACLE_QT) || defined(VBOX_WITH_QT_PAYLOAD) include $(KBUILD_PATH)/units/qt5.kmk ifeq ($(KBUILD_TARGET),win) ___ rpmfusion-developers mailing list -- rpmfusion-developers@lists.rpmfusion.org To unsubscribe send an email to rpmfusion-developers-le...@lists.rpmfusion.org
[Bug 5524] Review Request: pcsx2 - Playstation 2 Emulator
https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=5524 --- Comment #19 from Artem --- (In reply to Sérgio Basto from comment #18) > (In reply to Artem from comment #17) > > (In reply to t-rpmfusion from comment #16) > > > Issues: > > > - rpm -qlp pcsx2-1.5.0-4.20200205git5308be3.fc32.i686.rpm > > > includes /usr/lib/.build-id and subdirectories. is this intentional? > > > > Help wanted here. Maybe this is linter bug? > > Is a defualt of builds now, is not a problem My bad, i should clarify this: this .build-id of course is OK from F29, but i did my previous 'fedora-review' and rpm linter warned me about some .build-id dups and i never seen such issue before. But i already removed my old review and now no this issue anyway according to 'fedora-review'. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.___ rpmfusion-developers mailing list -- rpmfusion-developers@lists.rpmfusion.org To unsubscribe send an email to rpmfusion-developers-le...@lists.rpmfusion.org
[Bug 5524] Review Request: pcsx2 - Playstation 2 Emulator
https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=5524 --- Comment #18 from Sérgio Basto --- (In reply to Artem from comment #17) > (In reply to t-rpmfusion from comment #16) > > Issues: > > - rpm -qlp pcsx2-1.5.0-4.20200205git5308be3.fc32.i686.rpm > > includes /usr/lib/.build-id and subdirectories. is this intentional? > > Help wanted here. Maybe this is linter bug? Is a defualt of builds now, is not a problem -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.___ rpmfusion-developers mailing list -- rpmfusion-developers@lists.rpmfusion.org To unsubscribe send an email to rpmfusion-developers-le...@lists.rpmfusion.org
[Bug 5524] Review Request: pcsx2 - Playstation 2 Emulator
https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=5524
--- Comment #17 from Artem ---
(In reply to t-rpmfusion from comment #16)
> Issues:
> - rpm -qlp pcsx2-1.5.0-4.20200205git5308be3.fc32.i686.rpm
> includes /usr/lib/.build-id and subdirectories. is this intentional?
Help wanted here. Maybe this is linter bug?
> while you're at it:
> - stricter glob for man page (e.g %{appname}.*) and pixmaps (e.g.
> %{appname}.xpm) please
Fixed.
> - fedora-review suggests requiring `%{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release}`
> in
> `%package langpacks` (you're missing %{?_isa})
%{?_isa} only for arched packages and noarch package shouldn't require arched.
RPM linter will say this is error.
> - Package must own all directories that it creates.
> Note: Directories without known owners:
> /usr/share/locale/ar_SA/LC_MESSAGES, /usr/share/locale/ar_SA
> I think you can add it below %files ... langpacks and it will be picked up.
Fixed.
---
Spec URL: https://atim.fedorapeople.org/for-review/pcsx2.spec
SRPM URL:
https://atim.fedorapeople.org/for-review/pcsx2-1.5.0-5.20200205git5308be3.fc31.src.rpm
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.___
rpmfusion-developers mailing list -- rpmfusion-developers@lists.rpmfusion.org
To unsubscribe send an email to rpmfusion-developers-le...@lists.rpmfusion.org
Re: f32-free ftbfs list
On 2/5/20 6:10 PM, Mamoru TASAKA wrote: Actually waylandpp-0.2.7-3.fc32 has the fix and now this waylandcpp is in f32 buildroot. The package used during mass build was waylandpp-0.2.7-1.fc32 . I guess Rawhide is not getting fully composed right now. The -1 package is still in the repo. :( ___ rpmfusion-developers mailing list -- rpmfusion-developers@lists.rpmfusion.org To unsubscribe send an email to rpmfusion-developers-le...@lists.rpmfusion.org
[Bug 5104] Review request: glmixer - Graphic Live Mixer
https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=5104 FeRD (Frank Dana) changed: What|Removed |Added CC||ferd...@gmail.com --- Comment #12 from FeRD (Frank Dana) --- (In reply to Nicolas Chauvet from comment #11) > I don't think glmixer is active upstream anymore. ?? There were 57 commits[1] to its repo in 2019, the most recent were a bunch all on 2019-11-03 and 2019-11-04. I have no opinion on its UTILITY or whatever, and I have no idea whether they plan to modernize the code, but that doesn't strike me as a dead project. (Though I agree that, unless they're planning to migrate to Qt5, it seems kind of pointless. And the fact that there was no response to Martin's Qt5 request ticket is a bad sign.) [1]: https://sourceforge.net/p/glmixer/Source/commit_browser -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.___ rpmfusion-developers mailing list -- rpmfusion-developers@lists.rpmfusion.org To unsubscribe send an email to rpmfusion-developers-le...@lists.rpmfusion.org
[Bug 5164] Review request: stansoft - A text-based financial accounting system
https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=5164 --- Comment #21 from Nicolas Chauvet --- @Dominik Anything holding this review ? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.___ rpmfusion-developers mailing list -- rpmfusion-developers@lists.rpmfusion.org To unsubscribe send an email to rpmfusion-developers-le...@lists.rpmfusion.org
[Bug 5104] Review request: glmixer - Graphic Live Mixer
https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=5104 Nicolas Chauvet changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED Resolution|--- |EXPIRED -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.___ rpmfusion-developers mailing list -- rpmfusion-developers@lists.rpmfusion.org To unsubscribe send an email to rpmfusion-developers-le...@lists.rpmfusion.org
[Bug 5104] Review request: glmixer - Graphic Live Mixer
https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=5104 --- Comment #11 from Nicolas Chauvet --- I don't think glmixer is active upstream anymore. Do we want to follow the review or not ? (specially as it will be still using qt4). @Martin I'm suggesting to close, but if you want to continue, please re-open. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.___ rpmfusion-developers mailing list -- rpmfusion-developers@lists.rpmfusion.org To unsubscribe send an email to rpmfusion-developers-le...@lists.rpmfusion.org
[Bug 5524] Review Request: pcsx2 - Playstation 2 Emulator
https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=5524
--- Comment #16 from t-rpmfus...@girst.at ---
Issues:
- rpm -qlp pcsx2-1.5.0-4.20200205git5308be3.fc32.i686.rpm
includes /usr/lib/.build-id and subdirectories. is this intentional?
while you're at it:
- stricter glob for man page (e.g %{appname}.*) and pixmaps (e.g.
%{appname}.xpm) please
- fedora-review suggests requiring `%{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release}` in
`%package langpacks` (you're missing %{?_isa})
- Package must own all directories that it creates.
Note: Directories without known owners:
/usr/share/locale/ar_SA/LC_MESSAGES, /usr/share/locale/ar_SA
I think you can add it below %files ... langpacks and it will be picked up.
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
= MUST items =
C/C++:
[x]: Package does not contain kernel modules.
[x]: Package contains no static executables.
[x]: Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present.
Note: Unversioned so-files in private %_libdir subdirectory (see
attachment). Verify they are not in ld path.
[x]: If your application is a C or C++ application you must list a
BuildRequires against gcc, gcc-c++ or clang.
[x]: Header files in -devel subpackage, if present.
[x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la)
[x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs.
Generic:
[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
Guidelines.
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
Note: Cannot run licensecheck: Command 'licensecheck -r
/var/lib/mock/fedora-
rawhide-i386/root/builddir/build/BUILD/pcsx2-5308be3c4d1c5b4026ce9cd70ba0b591e9b95f68'
returned non-zero exit status 2.
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[-]: If the package is under multiple licenses, the licensing breakdown
must be documented in the spec.
[?]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
Note: Directories without known owners:
/usr/share/locale/ar_SA/LC_MESSAGES, /usr/share/locale/ar_SA
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
Note: Dirs in package are owned also by: /usr/lib/games/pcsx2(locale,,
defaulting, Failed, set, to, C), /usr/share/doc/pcsx2(locale,,
defaulting, Failed, set, to, C), /usr/share/games/pcsx2(locale,,
defaulting, Failed, set, to, C), /usr/share/licenses/pcsx2(locale,,
defaulting, Failed, set, to, C)
[x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
[-]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[-]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: The spec file handles locales properly.
[x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory
names).
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
Provides are present.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise.
[-]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
(~1MB) or number of files.
Note: Documentation size is 225280 bytes in 3 files.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least
one supported primary architecture.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the
license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the
license(s) for the package is included in %license.
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
beginning of %install.
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[x]: Package installs a %{name}.desktop using desktop-file-install or
desktop-file-validate if there is such a file.
[x]: Dist tag is present.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: Package must not depend on deprecated() packages.
[x]: Package use %makei
RPM Fusion update report 2020-02-06
RPM Fusion update report Section free: - Fedora 30 - Pushed to testing: shotcut-20.02.02-0.1.beta1.fc30 Pushed to stable: get_iplayer-3.25-1.fc30 zboy-0.71-1.fc30 Fedora 31 - Pushed to testing: shotcut-20.02.02-0.1.beta1.fc31 Pushed to stable: get_iplayer-3.25-1.fc31 qt5-qtwebengine-freeworld-5.13.2-1.fc31 retroarch-freeworld-1.8.4-3.fc31 zboy-0.71-1.fc31 EL 6 - Pushed to testing: Pushed to stable: EL 7 - Pushed to testing: wireguard-kmod-0.0.20191219-1.el7 Pushed to stable: EL 8 - Pushed to testing: wireguard-kmod-0.0.20191219-1.el8 Pushed to stable: Section nonfree: - Fedora 30 - Pushed to testing: Pushed to stable: unrar-5.9.1-1.fc30 Fedora 31 - Pushed to testing: Pushed to stable: unrar-5.9.1-1.fc31 EL 6 - Pushed to testing: Pushed to stable: EL 7 - Pushed to testing: Pushed to stable: EL 8 - Pushed to testing: Pushed to stable: nvidia-kmod-440.59-1.el8 nvidia-modprobe-440.59-1.el8 nvidia-persistenced-440.59-1.el8 nvidia-settings-440.59-1.el8 nvidia-xconfig-440.59-1.el8 unrar-5.9.1-1.el8 xorg-x11-drv-nvidia-440.59-1.el8 Theses packages will be available in main mirror in a few hours. Wait for local mirrors to sync Please report any issue to https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org ___ rpmfusion-developers mailing list -- rpmfusion-developers@lists.rpmfusion.org To unsubscribe send an email to rpmfusion-developers-le...@lists.rpmfusion.org
[Bug 5524] Review Request: pcsx2 - Playstation 2 Emulator
https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=5524 --- Comment #15 from Artem --- (In reply to Nicolas Chauvet from comment #13) > Why not using -langpacks instead of -translation ? > Seems to be used by glibc at least to provide translation. Fixed. Great tip. (In reply to Nicolas Chauvet from comment #14) > Another point is that I don't see the reason to split the package into -data > as the software is available only on i686 and -data is mandatory, so It > won't save any disk space. Fixed. Spec URL: https://atim.fedorapeople.org/for-review/pcsx2.spec SRPM URL: https://atim.fedorapeople.org/for-review/pcsx2-1.5.0-4.20200205git5308be3.fc31.src.rpm -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.___ rpmfusion-developers mailing list -- rpmfusion-developers@lists.rpmfusion.org To unsubscribe send an email to rpmfusion-developers-le...@lists.rpmfusion.org
[Bug 5524] Review Request: pcsx2 - Playstation 2 Emulator
https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=5524 --- Comment #14 from Nicolas Chauvet --- Another point is that I don't see the reason to split the package into -data as the software is available only on i686 and -data is mandatory, so It won't save any disk space. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.___ rpmfusion-developers mailing list -- rpmfusion-developers@lists.rpmfusion.org To unsubscribe send an email to rpmfusion-developers-le...@lists.rpmfusion.org
[Bug 5524] Review Request: pcsx2 - Playstation 2 Emulator
https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=5524 --- Comment #13 from Nicolas Chauvet --- Why not using -langpacks instead of -translation ? Seems to be used by glibc at least to provide translation. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.___ rpmfusion-developers mailing list -- rpmfusion-developers@lists.rpmfusion.org To unsubscribe send an email to rpmfusion-developers-le...@lists.rpmfusion.org
Re: [xine-lib] add define for legacy_common_support
It's documented here. https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/redhat-rpm-config/blob/master/f/buildflags.md#legacy-fcommon ___ rpmfusion-developers mailing list -- rpmfusion-developers@lists.rpmfusion.org To unsubscribe send an email to rpmfusion-developers-le...@lists.rpmfusion.org
Re: [xine-lib] add define for legacy_common_support
Hi Leigh,
Le 06/02/2020 à 01:40, Leigh Scott a écrit :
commit c4ab58259110eb1bf55a67a464b00a156abd3364
Author: Leigh Scott
Date: Thu Feb 6 00:40:27 2020 +
add define for legacy_common_support
xine-lib.spec | 1 +
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+)
---
diff --git a/xine-lib.spec b/xine-lib.spec
index 8659dfd..85dc77c 100644
--- a/xine-lib.spec
+++ b/xine-lib.spec
@@ -1,3 +1,4 @@
+%define _legacy_common_support 1
%global plugin_abi 2.8
%global codecdir%{_libdir}/codecs
The commit message is not very informative.
For the sake of saving time to others that have had a similar commit
added to some package they maintain, here are some explanations :
-
https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/redhat-rpm-config/blob/master/f/buildflags.md#legacy-fcommon
- https://gcc.gnu.org/gcc-10/porting_to.html#common
Other affected packages are :
xv xrick vice vokoscreen obs-studio mp3splt-gtk minidlna fakenes aqualung
(Or at least that are the ones you fixed with a similar commit already)
Also, shouldn't that be %global rather than %define ?
I will dig into that a bit more and report to upstream xine-lib.
Thanks for running the mass rebuild.
Regards,
___
rpmfusion-developers mailing list -- rpmfusion-developers@lists.rpmfusion.org
To unsubscribe send an email to rpmfusion-developers-le...@lists.rpmfusion.org
