[Bug 6426] Review request: mesa-freeworld - Mesa graphics libraries
https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=6426 Geraldo Simiao changed: What|Removed |Added CC||geraldo.simiao.kutz@gmail.c ||om --- Comment #66 from Geraldo Simiao --- Just for the records, I saw that already was a build for F36, downloaded it and tried to install just to see what dnf returns. It seems it returns a "nothing provides" since mesa -filesystem is at version 22.1.7-1 at the F36 repos (mesa-filesystem-22.1.7-1.fc36.x86_64) This was the message: Problema 1: solicitações conflitantes - nada fornece mesa-filesystem(x86-64) >= 22.2.2 necessário para mesa-va-drivers-freeworld-22.2.2-1.fc36.x86_64 Problema 2: solicitações conflitantes - nada fornece mesa-filesystem(x86-64) >= 22.2.2 necessário para mesa-vdpau-drivers-freeworld-22.2.2-1.fc36.x86_64 -- 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 5824] Review request: etlegacy - Fully compatible client and server for the popular online FPS game Wolfenstein: Enemy Territory
https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=5824
FeRD (Frank Dana) changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ferd...@gmail.com
--- Comment #19 from FeRD (Frank Dana) ---
(In reply to Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski from comment #17)
>
> # For unknown reason, whole binary optimization breaks results.
> # Disable -flto for now, fix it later
> sed -e 's,-flto=auto,,' -i CMakeCache.txt
That works, but just for the record the canonical opt-out (as documented in a
/usr/lib/rpm/redhat/macros comment) is:
%define _lto_cflags %{nil}
--
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: what happened to mencoder package?
On Wed, Nov 9, 2022 at 8:58 AM wrote: > Tracing down a dependency issue for mythtv -> mjpegtools -> mencoder for > el9, I noticed mencoder does not show in rpmfusion pkgdb. > > However, the package does exist in some rpmfusion repos, like el8 for > example: > > I find that the "Source RPM" field shown by rpm -qi, and/or dnf info's "Source" field, is my best friend for tracing packages back to their parents in those situations. The *source *RPM name never doesn't match the package repo. ___ rpmfusion-developers mailing list -- rpmfusion-developers@lists.rpmfusion.org To unsubscribe send an email to rpmfusion-developers-le...@lists.rpmfusion.org
Re: what happened to mencoder package?
It's a sub-package of mplayer https://koji.rpmfusion.org/koji/buildinfo?buildID=23580 On 09/11/2022 13:57, zonexpertconsult...@outlook.com wrote: Tracing down a dependency issue for mythtv -> mjpegtools -> mencoder for el9, I noticed mencoder does not show in rpmfusion pkgdb. However, the package does exist in some rpmfusion repos, like el8 for example: $ dnf search mencoder Last metadata expiration check: 1 day, 23:38:05 ago on Mon 07 Nov 2022 08:17:55 AM CST. Name Exactly Matched: mencoder mencoder.x86_64 : MPlayer movie encoder Can anyone speak to the status of the mencoder package? Thanks, Andy No Trees were killed in the sending of this message. However, a large number of electrons were terribly inconvenienced. ___ rpmfusion-developers mailing list --rpmfusion-developers@lists.rpmfusion.org To unsubscribe send an email torpmfusion-developers-le...@lists.rpmfusion.org___ rpmfusion-developers mailing list -- rpmfusion-developers@lists.rpmfusion.org To unsubscribe send an email to rpmfusion-developers-le...@lists.rpmfusion.org
[Bug 6426] Review request: mesa-freeworld - Mesa graphics libraries
https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=6426 --- Comment #65 from Nickolas Gupton --- (In reply to leigh scott from comment #63) > (In reply to Luya Tshimbalanga from comment #62) > > That is a bummer for Fedora 36. Looking at koji build, it seems the latest > > update is on August 2022. > > Why?, f36 don't need mesa-freeworld yet as they haven't disabled h264/5 > > https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/mesa/commits/f36 Looking at the commit these features were removed in: https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/mesa/c/94ef544b3f2125912dfbff4c6ef373fe49806b52?branch=rawhide The line that was removed there also doesn't exist in the mesa.spec for F36, so don't think these features are enabled in the mesa driver for F36 either: https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/mesa/blob/f36/f/mesa.spec Were these features just never enabled for the driver in F36, or am I missing something here? -- 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
what happened to mencoder package?
Tracing down a dependency issue for mythtv -> mjpegtools -> mencoder for el9, I noticed mencoder does not show in rpmfusion pkgdb. However, the package does exist in some rpmfusion repos, like el8 for example: $ dnf search mencoder Last metadata expiration check: 1 day, 23:38:05 ago on Mon 07 Nov 2022 08:17:55 AM CST. Name Exactly Matched: mencoder mencoder.x86_64 : MPlayer movie encoder Can anyone speak to the status of the mencoder package? Thanks, Andy No Trees were killed in the sending of this message. However, a large number of electrons were terribly inconvenienced. ___ rpmfusion-developers mailing list -- rpmfusion-developers@lists.rpmfusion.org To unsubscribe send an email to rpmfusion-developers-le...@lists.rpmfusion.org
[Bug 6468] Review request: intel-ipu6-kmod-common - The necessary module configuration for akmod-intel-ipu6
https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=6468 leigh scott changed: What|Removed |Added CC||leigh123li...@gmail.com --- Comment #3 from leigh scott --- We use virtual provides for common, see https://pkgs.rpmfusion.org/cgit/free/xtables-addons.git/tree/xtables-addons.spec#n12 Add the virtual provide to this package https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=6474 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are the assignee 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 6469] Review request: intel-ipu6-kmod - The driver for Intel IPU6 MIPI camera
https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=6469 Hans de Goede changed: What|Removed |Added CC||h...@hansg.org --- Comment #6 from Hans de Goede --- (In reply to Kate Hsuan from comment #0) > - Mention that you are seeking a sponsor if you are not a Fedora sponsored > packager or an RPM Fusion sponsored packager. > > Yes, I'm seeking a reviewer. The question is about needing a sponsor, since you are already in the Fedora packager group: https://accounts.fedoraproject.org/user/smallorange/ You do *not* need a rpmfusion sponsor. The only thing which is necessary is for your packages to go through the regular review process. Note to other rpmfusion devs. I'm not very experienced with reviewing kmods. I plan to review the userspace bits, see bug 6474 (which is just the first of a set of userspace pkgs) but I/we could really use some help with reviewing the kmod parts. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are the assignee 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 6468] Review request: intel-ipu6-kmod-common - The necessary module configuration for akmod-intel-ipu6
https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=6468 Hans de Goede changed: What|Removed |Added CC||h...@hansg.org --- Comment #2 from Hans de Goede --- (In reply to Kate Hsuan from comment #0) > - Mention that you are seeking a sponsor if you are not a Fedora sponsored > packager or an RPM Fusion sponsored packager. > > Yes, I'm seeking a reviewer. The question is about needing a sponsor, since you are already in the Fedora packager group: https://accounts.fedoraproject.org/user/smallorange/ You do *not* need a rpmfusion sponsor. The only thing which is necessary is for your packages to go through the regular review process. So lets move over to the package review. I have just 1 initial review remark: We don't need a modules.load.d file for the ipu6 drivers, they will properly autoload based on the PCI-id of the IPU6 + the ACPI ids of the sensors. Which would leave this package as an empty package, so I'm not sure if this package is necessary at all? Note to other rpmfusion devs. I'm not very experienced with reviewing kmods. I plan to review the userspace bits, see bug 6474 (which is just the first of a set of userspace pkgs) but I/we could really use some help with reviewing the kmod parts. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are the assignee 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 6474] Review request: ipu6-bin and ipu6-bin-firmware - Intel IPU6/iVSC binary library and firmware
https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=6474 --- Comment #3 from Hans de Goede --- About: > Typing this outs makes me realize that bundling the ivsc-firmware with the > ipu6-firmware is probably not the best of ideas. I think it might be better > to just do a separate ivsc-firmware package and have the ivsc-driver-kmod > have a "Requires: ivsc-firmware" and have the ipu6-drivers kmod have a > "Requires: ipu6-firmware" and then have this package only provide the > ipu6-firmware. This is talking about having 2 different kmod packages while we agreed to package the ipu6 and ivsc driver upstreams into a singe kmod package since they interdepend on each other during build time. So assuming that the plan still is to just do a single kmod pkg to solve the interdependency issues, that would mean that that single kmod would get 2 Requires: Requires: ipu6-camera-bins-firmware Requires: ivsc-firmware I still think that given that they have separate upstreams and that we thus need to reference 2 different commit hashes to make clear which version we are packaging that putting the ivsc-firmware in its own (small) package is better then adding it to this package. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are the assignee 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 6474] Review request: ipu6-bin and ipu6-bin-firmware - Intel IPU6/iVSC binary library and firmware
https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=6474
Hans de Goede changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||h...@hansg.org
--- Comment #2 from Hans de Goede ---
Hi Kate,
Thank you for your work on this.
(In reply to Kate Hsuan from comment #0)
> - Mention that you are seeking a sponsor if you are not a Fedora sponsored
> packager or an RPM Fusion sponsored packager.
>
> Yes, I'm seeking a reviewer.
The question is about needing a sponsor, since you are already in the Fedora
packager group: https://accounts.fedoraproject.org/user/smallorange/ You do
*not* need a rpmfusion sponsor. The only thing which is necessary is for your
packages to go through the regular review process.
So lets move over to the package review. I have a bunch of initial review
remarks:
1. The upstream repo is named ipu6-camera-bins, please also make that the name
of the .spec file and the .src.rpm, the main package, the provides, etc. all
ipu6-camera-bins.
2. You point to your own fork of ipu6-camera-bins instead of Intel's upstream
github repo. For the ipu6-drivers and ivsc-driver (a)kmod packages this makes
sense since we need some downstream patches; and this gives the added advantage
of being able to tag releases.
But with the ipu6-camera-bins (+ ivsc-firmware) we are just directly consuming
whatever Intel drops. So IMHO it would be better to just directly use Intel's
github repo here. See:
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/SourceURL/#_git_hosting_services
For how to reference a commit given the lack of releases there. So in the .spec
file you would add something like:
%global commit 9874603336d97fd4d12a271485645aaabc7c1be3
%global commitdate 20221021
%global shortcommit %(c=%{commit}; echo ${c:0:7})
%global ivsc_fw_commit 29c5eff4cdaf83e90ef2dcd2035a9cdff6343430
%global ivsc_fw_shortcommit %(c=%{ivsc_fw_commit}; echo ${c:0:7})
Version: 0.0
Release: 1.%{commitdate}git%{shortcommit}%{?dist}
Source0:
https://github.com/intel/%{name}/archive/%{commit}/%{name}-%{shortcommit}.tar.gz
Source1:
https://github.com/intel/ivsc-firmware/archive/%{ivsc_fw_commit}/ivsc-firmware-%{ivsc_fw_shortcommit}.tar.gz
Typing this outs makes me realize that bundling the ivsc-firmware with the
ipu6-firmware is probably not the best of ideas. I think it might be better to
just do a separate ivsc-firmware package and have the ivsc-driver-kmod have a
"Requires: ivsc-firmware" and have the ipu6-drivers kmod have a "Requires:
ipu6-firmware" and then have this package only provide the ipu6-firmware.
3. "%global __brp_check_rpaths %{nil}" is this necessary? Does Intel include
rpaths in their pre-compiled .so files? If yes then we should probably just
strip the rpaths rather then disabling the rpath checks. You can do this by
running "chrpath --delete " on the .so files.
4:
"""
Source2:ld-so-conf-d-ipu6.conf
Source3:ld-so-conf-d-ipu6ep.conf
"""
The ipu6 and ipu6ep variants of the library provide the same symbols so this is
going to cause the variant to get loaded which happened to end up first in the
ld.so cache,
which is not what we want.
The plan is to not have these libraries in the ld.so cache / path at all and
instead to patch the so build from the ipu6-camera-hal sources with a rpath to
the right variant. The libcamerahal.so build from the ipu6-camera-hal sources
is the only consumer of this libs, so we can use a rpath inside that .so to
pick the right variant of the libs.
We need to do 2 builds of the ipu6-camera-hal (one for both variants) anyways
so we will have 2 separate .so-s from each build and we can patch the right
rpath into each .so .
TL;DR: please drop these 2 files, we don't want these libraries to be in the
standard ld.so path / ld.so cache.
5. You are using
5. You are currently not creating a -devel subpackage but to build
ipu6-camera-hal we are going to need a -devel subpackage. Please add a -devel
subpackage which in %install does:
for i in ipu6 ipu6ep; do
mkdir -p %{buildroot}%{_includedir}/$i
mkdir -p %{buildroot}%{_libdir}/$i
cp -pr $i/include/* %{buildroot}%{_includedir}/$i/
cp -pr $i/lib/pkgconfig %{buildroot}%{_libdir}/$i/
sed -i \
-e "s|libdir=/usr/lib|libdir=%{_libdir}|g" \
-e "s|libdir}|libdir}/$i|g" \
-e "s|includedir}|includedir}/$i|g" \
%{buildroot}%{_libdir}/$i/pkgconfig/*.pc
done
And add:
%{_includedir}/ipu6
%{_includedir}/ipu6ep
%{_libdir}/ipu6/pkgconfig/
%{_libdir}/ipu6ep/pkgconfig/
to %files for the -devel subpackage.
6. You may want to simply %install for the libs to just doing:
for i in ipu6 ipu6ep; do
mkdir -p %{buildroot}%{_libdir}/$i
cp -pr $i/lib/lib* %{buildroot}%{_libdir}/$i
done
This will also ensure that libgcss.so and libgcss.so.0 stay symlinks which I'm
not sure your current approach does. If you merge this with the %install bits
needed for the -devel
[Bug 6474] Review request: ipu6-bin and ipu6-bin-firmware - Intel IPU6/iVSC binary library and firmware
https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=6474 --- Comment #1 from Kate Hsuan --- Update URL information SPEC: https://github.com/smallorange/ipu6-bin-firmware/blob/main/ipu6-firmware.spec SRPM: https://github.com/smallorange/ipu6-bin-firmware/releases/download/0.0.1/ipu6-bin-0.0.1-2.fc38.src.rpm Description: This rpm spec contains two packages. They are ipu6-bin and ipu6-firmware. ipu6-bin is used to: This provides the necessary binaries for Intel IPU6, including IPU6 itself and iVSC. The library includes necessary image processing algorithms and 3A algorithm for the camera. ipu6-bin-firmware is used to: This provides the necessary firmwares for Intel IPU6, including IPU6 and iVSC. Rpmfusion Account System Username: smallorange -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are the assignee 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 6468] Review request: intel-ipu6-kmod-common - The necessary module configuration for akmod-intel-ipu6
https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=6468 --- Comment #1 from Kate Hsuan --- Update URL information SPEC: https://github.com/smallorange/intel-ipu6/blob/main/intel-ipu6.spec SRPM: https://github.com/smallorange/intel-ipu6/releases/download/0.0.1/intel-ipu6-kmod-common-0.0.1-2.fc38.src.rpm Description: This provides the module loading configurations for Intel IPU6 MIPI camera solutions. Rpmfusion Account System Username: smallorange -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are the assignee 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 6469] Review request: intel-ipu6-kmod - The driver for Intel IPU6 MIPI camera
https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=6469 --- Comment #5 from Kate Hsuan --- Update the URL information SPEC: https://github.com/smallorange/intel-ipu6-akmod/blob/main/intel-ipu6-kmod.spec SRPM: https://github.com/smallorange/intel-ipu6-akmod/releases/download/0.0.1/intel-ipu6-kmod-0.0.1-3.fc38.src.rpm Description: This enables the intel IPU6 image processor. This akmod package includes Intel IPU6 and Intel iVSC drivers. Rpmfusion Account System Username: smallorange -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are the assignee 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 6426] Review request: mesa-freeworld - Mesa graphics libraries
https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=6426 --- Comment #64 from Luya Tshimbalanga --- (In reply to leigh scott from comment #63) > (In reply to Luya Tshimbalanga from comment #62) > > That is a bummer for Fedora 36. Looking at koji build, it seems the latest > > update is on August 2022. > > Why?, f36 don't need mesa-freeworld yet as they haven't disabled h264/5 > > https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/mesa/commits/f36 Ah, that makes sense. -- 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 6426] Review request: mesa-freeworld - Mesa graphics libraries
https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=6426 --- Comment #63 from leigh scott --- (In reply to Luya Tshimbalanga from comment #62) > That is a bummer for Fedora 36. Looking at koji build, it seems the latest > update is on August 2022. Why?, f36 don't need mesa-freeworld yet as they haven't disabled h264/5 https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/mesa/commits/f36 -- 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
