Re: qt6-qtwebengine-freeworld?
On Tue, Sep 26, 2023 19:28:57 +0200, Kevin Kofler via rpmfusion-developers wrote: > Ankur Sinha via rpmfusion-developers wrote: > > I'm not really sure. How would one test this? (Things like Netflix seem > > to work fine here for me) > > Netflix works for you?! I would have expected it to work only if you > manually install the widevine DRM blob into the correct directory. I upgraded here, so maybe I've done this in the past and it's still there. I see this in my qutebrowser config: ``` ppapi-widevine-path=/opt/google/chrome/libwidevinecdm.so ``` > > > I do see that `-DFeature_webengine_proprietary_codecs` is set to ON in > > the spec: > > > > https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/qt6-qtwebengine/blob/rawhide/f/qt6-qtwebengine.spec#_441 > > Then the Fedora package is probably overreporting the supported codecs. > Though on the other hand, at least H.264 is mostly supported by the Fedora > FFmpeg if OpenH264 is available for dlopening (though I have not tested > whether that feature actually works in Chromium/QtWebEngine, it works only > if the application does not hardcode the FFmpeg codec name), so the list > might not be all that wrong even in Fedora. If there's a way to get the list or test out the supported codecs, I can do that and report back. > That said, Chromium also uses a bundled OpenH264 to encode H.264 for WebRTC. > If that is not patched to support dlopening, then we still need a qt6- > qtwebengine-freeworld built with the bundled OpenH264 enabled. We are not > allowed to ship OpenH264 directly in Fedora, only through that Cisco > arrangement. I have these packages: ``` $ rpm -qa \*264\* x264-libs-0.164-8.20220602gitbaee400f.fc39.x86_64 openh264-2.3.1-2.fc39.x86_64 mozilla-openh264-2.3.1-2.fc39.x86_64 gstreamer1-plugin-openh264-1.22.1-1.fc39.x86_64 ``` Again, not sure if stuff works as it should. I just haven't noticed any issues in normal usage yet. -- Thanks, Regards, Ankur Sinha "FranciscoD" (He / Him / His) | https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Ankursinha Time zone: Europe/London signature.asc Description: PGP signature ___ rpmfusion-developers mailing list -- rpmfusion-developers@lists.rpmfusion.org To unsubscribe send an email to rpmfusion-developers-le...@lists.rpmfusion.org
Re: qt6-qtwebengine-freeworld?
Hi Kevin, On Tue, Sep 26, 2023 12:56:04 +0200, Kevin Kofler via rpmfusion-developers wrote: > Ankur Sinha via rpmfusion-developers wrote: > > No freeworld package is needed for qt6-qtwebengine. It is linked > > against Fedora's system ffmpeg and will gracefully upgrade when > > libavcodec-freeworld is installed. > > It will pick up the FFmpeg library, yes, but will it actually report the > proper list of supported codecs to the websites? I doubt it. The list has > always been hardcoded at compile time (picked from one of two manually > hardcoded lists depending on the "use_proprietary_codecs" compilation > option) in Chromium. > I'm not really sure. How would one test this? (Things like Netflix seem to work fine here for me) I do see that `-DFeature_webengine_proprietary_codecs` is set to ON in the spec: https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/qt6-qtwebengine/blob/rawhide/f/qt6-qtwebengine.spec#_441 -- Thanks, Regards, Ankur Sinha "FranciscoD" (He / Him / His) | https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Ankursinha Time zone: Europe/London signature.asc Description: PGP signature ___ rpmfusion-developers mailing list -- rpmfusion-developers@lists.rpmfusion.org To unsubscribe send an email to rpmfusion-developers-le...@lists.rpmfusion.org
Re: qt6-qtwebengine-freeworld?
Hi folks, No -freeworld package is required for qt6-qtwebengine. Neal said: " No freeworld package is needed for qt6-qtwebengine. It is linked against Fedora's system ffmpeg and will gracefully upgrade when libavcodec-freeworld is installed. " -- Thanks, Regards, Ankur Sinha "FranciscoD" (He / Him / His) | https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Ankursinha Time zone: Europe/London signature.asc Description: PGP signature ___ rpmfusion-developers mailing list -- rpmfusion-developers@lists.rpmfusion.org To unsubscribe send an email to rpmfusion-developers-le...@lists.rpmfusion.org
Re: qt6-qtwebengine-freeworld?
On Thu, Sep 21, 2023 10:33:04 +0200, Nicolas Chauvet wrote: > Hi Ankur, Hi Nicolas, > Thanks for raising this point here. > > My understanding is that qt6-qtwebengine doesn't have the restriction > experienced with the qt5 counterpart wrt runtime codec detection. > So we should be able to use the fedora version unmodified and just > switch codecs (swap ffmpeg-libs). > > But you need to confirm with the qt6/kde maintainers. Cool, I'll go check with them to see what needs to be done here. -- Thanks, Regards, Ankur Sinha "FranciscoD" (He / Him / His) | https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Ankursinha Time zone: Europe/London signature.asc Description: PGP signature ___ rpmfusion-developers mailing list -- rpmfusion-developers@lists.rpmfusion.org To unsubscribe send an email to rpmfusion-developers-le...@lists.rpmfusion.org
qt6-qtwebengine-freeworld?
Hi folks, Upgraded to F39 a few days ago and got the new Qutebrowser 3.0.0 update today. It asked me if I wanted to use Qt5 or Qt6. I see there's a qt6-qtwebengine in Fedora now, so do we need to have a qt6-qtwebengine-freeworld in RPM Fusion too now? As always, I'm happy to help with the rebuilds etc., but I don't know enough about Qt development to do the initial packaging. -- Thanks, Regards, Ankur Sinha "FranciscoD" (He / Him / His) | https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Ankursinha Time zone: Europe/London signature.asc Description: PGP signature ___ rpmfusion-developers mailing list -- rpmfusion-developers@lists.rpmfusion.org To unsubscribe send an email to rpmfusion-developers-le...@lists.rpmfusion.org
qt5-qtwebengine-freeworld rebuild for qt 5.15.10 in progress
Hi folks, Just an FYI. I'm in the process of rebuilding qt5-qtwebengine-freeworld for the Fedora qt 5.15.10 update for F38+ https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/qt5-qtwebengine/c/e596b1ceeb05fc04212374c418e2b8c792652f9b?branch=rawhide (dnf will complain of broken deps in the meantime) -- Thanks, Regards, Ankur Sinha "FranciscoD" (He / Him / His) | https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Ankursinha Time zone: Europe/London signature.asc Description: PGP signature ___ rpmfusion-developers mailing list -- rpmfusion-developers@lists.rpmfusion.org To unsubscribe send an email to rpmfusion-developers-le...@lists.rpmfusion.org
Re: qt5-qtwebengine-freeworld is still maintained ?
Hi Kevin, Just saw your new build for F38. I thought I had rebuilt the F38 package for qt 5.15.9 already---my local mock build here certainly shows it (it's the package I'm using now): $ rpm -qi qt5-qtwebengine-freeworld --requires | grep qt Name: qt5-qtwebengine-freeworld Source RPM : qt5-qtwebengine-freeworld-5.15.12-3.fc38.src.rpm URL : http://www.qt.io config(qt5-qtwebengine-freeworld) = 5.15.12-3.fc38 qt5-qtbase(x86-64) = 5.15.9 qt5-qtwebengine(x86-64) = 5.15.12 and yet, on koji, it still says 5.15.8: https://koji.rpmfusion.org/koji/rpminfo?rpmID=898575 I don't quite understand this---shouldn't koji and mock do the same thing? Anyway, sorry about that. I'll remember to check koji in the future to confirm. -- Thanks, Regards, Ankur Sinha "FranciscoD" (He / Him / His) | https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Ankursinha Time zone: Europe/London signature.asc Description: PGP signature ___ rpmfusion-developers mailing list -- rpmfusion-developers@lists.rpmfusion.org To unsubscribe send an email to rpmfusion-developers-le...@lists.rpmfusion.org
Re: qt5-qtwebengine-freeworld is still maintained ?
On Tue, Apr 18, 2023 12:01:16 +0200, Nicolas Chauvet via rpmfusion-developers wrote: > Hi there, Hello, > According to pkgdb, this is still the case, but none has updated this > package for qt5-5.15.9 > https://admin.rpmfusion.org/pkgdb/package/free/qt5-qtwebengine-freeworld/ I usually rebuild it to keep it in sync with Fedora (if no one has done it already). Was on leave the past few weeks so didn't get down to it. On my list for this week. > Does this package still worth it (with ffmpeg-free in fedora ?) > Can we properly obsoletes it instead ? This bit I don't know---someone more knowledgeable will have to tell us. -- Thanks, Regards, Ankur Sinha "FranciscoD" (He / Him / His) | https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Ankursinha Time zone: Europe/London signature.asc Description: PGP signature ___ rpmfusion-developers mailing list -- rpmfusion-developers@lists.rpmfusion.org To unsubscribe send an email to rpmfusion-developers-le...@lists.rpmfusion.org
Re: RPM Fusion Fedora 36 GA
On Mon, May 09, 2022 12:15:51 +0100, Sérgio Basto wrote: > Hello, > > I happily announce that RPM Fusion Fedora 36 is General Available (GA). > > Thank you all that make it happen . Thanks everyone -- Thanks, Regards, Ankur Sinha "FranciscoD" (He / Him / His) | https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Ankursinha Time zone: Europe/London signature.asc Description: PGP signature ___ rpmfusion-developers mailing list -- rpmfusion-developers@lists.rpmfusion.org To unsubscribe send an email to rpmfusion-developers-le...@lists.rpmfusion.org
Re: Regenerating appstream data
On Fri, Apr 08, 2022 10:37:13 +0100, Ankur Sinha wrote: > Hi folks, > > I hope you're all well. > > I am planning to regenerate the appstream data and push updates to all > release soon. Could you please let me know if there are any new > packages/builds that I should wait for? Otherwise I'll try and do it > next week---maybe around Wednesday. I've just finished regenerating the appstream data and pushing builds. Please let me know if you notice anything unexpected once you receive the updates. -- Thanks, Regards, Ankur Sinha "FranciscoD" (He / Him / His) | https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Ankursinha Time zone: Europe/London signature.asc Description: PGP signature ___ rpmfusion-developers mailing list -- rpmfusion-developers@lists.rpmfusion.org To unsubscribe send an email to rpmfusion-developers-le...@lists.rpmfusion.org
Regenerating appstream data
Hi folks, I hope you're all well. I am planning to regenerate the appstream data and push updates to all release soon. Could you please let me know if there are any new packages/builds that I should wait for? Otherwise I'll try and do it next week---maybe around Wednesday. -- Thanks, Regards, Ankur Sinha "FranciscoD" (He / Him / His) | https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Ankursinha Time zone: Europe/London signature.asc Description: PGP signature ___ rpmfusion-developers mailing list -- rpmfusion-developers@lists.rpmfusion.org To unsubscribe send an email to rpmfusion-developers-le...@lists.rpmfusion.org
Re: rawhide/f33: qt5-qtwebengine-freeworld rebuild for qt 5.15.1 update
On Tue, Sep 29, 2020 08:33:24 -, Leigh Scott wrote: > File a bug report so the maintainer sees it! OK! (5x more exclaiming XD) https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=5773 -- Thanks, Regards, Ankur Sinha "FranciscoD" (He / Him / His) | https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Ankursinha Time zone: Europe/London signature.asc Description: PGP signature ___ rpmfusion-developers mailing list -- rpmfusion-developers@lists.rpmfusion.org To unsubscribe send an email to rpmfusion-developers-le...@lists.rpmfusion.org
rawhide/f33: qt5-qtwebengine-freeworld rebuild for qt 5.15.1 update
Hello,
I hope everyone is doing well.
I *think* qt5-qtwebengine-freeworld needs to be rebuilt for this qt
5.15.1 update[1,2]. At the moment, installing the package on F33 tries to
downgrade lots of qt bits.
I updated the rpmfusion spec based on the fedora update and tested out a
build on mock here, and it builds fine. Patch attached. Could someone
please take a look and build the package for rawhide + f33?
PS: I didn't upload the source tar since I wasn't sure if anything needs
to be stripped from it---I don't think so.
[1] https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-47f5cdf08a
[2] https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/qt5-qtwebengine/commits/master
--
Thanks,
Regards,
Ankur Sinha "FranciscoD" (He / Him / His) |
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Ankursinha
Time zone: Europe/London
From fc9f2762cdbc8e131751dcd13ace66edc54c13ca Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: "Ankur Sinha (Ankur Sinha Gmail)"
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 2020 09:07:27 +0100
Subject: [PATCH] Update to 5.15.1
---
qt5-qtwebengine-freeworld.spec| 9 +++--
qtwebengine-everywhere-src-5.10.0-linux-pri.patch | 13 +++--
2 files changed, 14 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-)
diff --git a/qt5-qtwebengine-freeworld.spec b/qt5-qtwebengine-freeworld.spec
index 53babc9..6461218 100644
--- a/qt5-qtwebengine-freeworld.spec
+++ b/qt5-qtwebengine-freeworld.spec
@@ -46,8 +46,8 @@
Summary: Qt5 - QtWebEngine components (freeworld version)
Name:qt5-qtwebengine-freeworld
-Version: 5.15.0
-Release: 2%{?dist}
+Version: 5.15.1
+Release: 1%{?dist}
%global major_minor %(echo %{version} | cut -d. -f-2)
%global major %(echo %{version} | cut -d. -f1)
@@ -178,6 +178,7 @@ BuildRequires: pkgconfig(libpci)
BuildRequires: pkgconfig(dbus-1)
BuildRequires: pkgconfig(nss)
BuildRequires: pkgconfig(lcms2)
+BuildRequires: pkgconfig(xkbcommon)
## https://bugreports.qt.io/browse/QTBUG-59094
#BuildRequires: pkgconfig(libxslt) pkgconfig(libxml-2.0)
BuildRequires: perl-interpreter
@@ -446,6 +447,10 @@ echo "%{_libdir}/%{name}" \
%changelog
+* Mon Sep 28 2020 Ankur Sinha - 5.15.1-1
+- Update to 5.15.1
+- Add missing BR
+
* Tue Aug 18 2020 RPM Fusion Release Engineering -
5.15.0-2
- Rebuilt for https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_33_Mass_Rebuild
diff --git a/qtwebengine-everywhere-src-5.10.0-linux-pri.patch
b/qtwebengine-everywhere-src-5.10.0-linux-pri.patch
index 995db84..a4dc334 100644
--- a/qtwebengine-everywhere-src-5.10.0-linux-pri.patch
+++ b/qtwebengine-everywhere-src-5.10.0-linux-pri.patch
@@ -1,9 +1,10 @@
-diff -ur qtwebengine-everywhere-src-5.10.0/src/buildtools/config/linux.pri
qtwebengine-everywhere-src-5.10.0-linux-pri/src/buildtools/config/linux.pri
qtwebengine-everywhere-src-5.10.0/src/buildtools/config/linux.pri
2017-11-29 09:42:29.0 +0100
-+++
qtwebengine-everywhere-src-5.10.0-linux-pri/src/buildtools/config/linux.pri
2017-12-25 12:07:40.262411459 +0100
-@@ -157,3 +157,19 @@
- #qtConfig(webengine-system-jsoncpp): gn_args += use_system_jsoncpp=true
- #qtConfig(webengine-system-libsrtp: gn_args += use_system_libsrtp=true
+diff --git a/src/buildtools/config/linux.pri b/src/buildtools/config/linux.pri
+index 56c18bd..cb17c7a 100644
+--- a/src/buildtools/config/linux.pri
b/src/buildtools/config/linux.pri
+@@ -176,3 +176,19 @@ host_build {
+ }
+ gn_args += use_glib=false
}
+
+# yasm is only used on x86, and passing use_system_yasm makes the build fail
on
--
2.28.0
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
___
rpmfusion-developers mailing list -- rpmfusion-developers@lists.rpmfusion.org
To unsubscribe send an email to rpmfusion-developers-le...@lists.rpmfusion.org
Re: Testing upgrade to F31: qt5-qtwebengine-freeworld errors
On Tue, Sep 17, 2019 09:01:54 +0200, Kevin Kofler wrote: > Ankur Sinha wrote: > > Would this be a known issue please, and is there a fix/workaround we can > > help test? > > It is known: https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=5384 – > qt5-qtwebengine-freeworld needs a rebuild. Thanks Kevin, I'll wait for the rebuild and test it out when it is ready. (CC'd myself to the bug now) -- Thanks, Regards, Ankur Sinha (He / Him / His) | https://ankursinha.in Time zone: Europe/London signature.asc Description: PGP signature ___ rpmfusion-developers mailing list -- rpmfusion-developers@lists.rpmfusion.org To unsubscribe send an email to rpmfusion-developers-le...@lists.rpmfusion.org
Testing upgrade to F31: qt5-qtwebengine-freeworld errors
Hello, I was checking the upgrade path to F31 from F30, and this error pops up currently: $ sudo dnf system-upgrade download --refresh --releasever=31 ... Error: Problem: package qt5-qtwebengine-freeworld-5.12.4-2.fc31.x86_64 requires libre2.so.0()(64bit), but none of the providers can be installed - problem with installed package qt5-qtwebengine-freeworld-5.12.4-2.fc30.x86_64 - re2-1:20160401-11.fc30.x86_64 does not belong to a distupgrade repository - qt5-qtwebengine-freeworld-5.12.4-2.fc30.x86_64 does not belong to a distupgrade repository (try to add '--skip-broken' to skip uninstallable packages) Would this be a known issue please, and is there a fix/workaround we can help test? -- Thanks, Regards, Ankur Sinha "FranciscoD" (He / Him / His) | https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Ankursinha Time zone: Europe/London signature.asc Description: PGP signature ___ rpmfusion-developers mailing list -- rpmfusion-developers@lists.rpmfusion.org To unsubscribe send an email to rpmfusion-developers-le...@lists.rpmfusion.org
New AskFedora on Discourse
Hi everyone, I hope you've heard of the new AskFedora already: https://ask.fedoraproject.org While the main goal is to support users, of course, we're also trying to make users aware of how the community works hoping that this will convince them to contribute in whatever way (go from merely being a "user" to a "community member"). Based on my personal experience, so this may not be true in general, most users don't know how Fedora is developed and maintained---they just assume that "someone does it". So, it isn't surprising that they never think of lending a hand. Given that RPMFusion is an important part of the Fedora community, it'll would be really useful if we also ensured that it has sufficient visibility on AskFedora also. So, please, hang out there, help users, and while you do, maybe drop a line or two when the opportunity arises on how RPMFusion works to make them aware of all the work that goes into it. There's also a special "Community category". Please feel free to post there to let people know whenever you could use some help. Even if we get a few users involved, that's still extra hands to help :) https://ask.fedoraproject.org/c/community/contributing-to-fedora -- Thanks, Regards, Ankur Sinha https://ankursinha.in Time zone: Europe/London signature.asc Description: PGP signature ___ rpmfusion-developers mailing list -- rpmfusion-developers@lists.rpmfusion.org To unsubscribe send an email to rpmfusion-developers-le...@lists.rpmfusion.org
Re: RPM Fusion is in place for Fedora 29
On Wed, Oct 24, 2018 09:51:45 +0200, Nicolas Chauvet wrote: > Hi, > > I just want to share that everything is in place in rpmfusion repos > for Fedora 29. > There is still a room for little fixup, so please report any issue. > But at this step the "releases/29" repos should be considered as > frozen. > > As a side note, I will be in vacation starting from this Thursday > until 4th of November. I will have limited access. So please don't > forget to use bugzilla if you need anything and escalate to Leigh for > urgent tasks. > > Thx for your work for this release! and congrats to all. Thanks for all your work Nicolas. Have a good holiday! -- Thanks, Regards, Ankur Sinha "FranciscoD" https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Ankursinha Time zone: Europe/London signature.asc Description: PGP signature ___ rpmfusion-developers mailing list -- rpmfusion-developers@lists.rpmfusion.org To unsubscribe send an email to rpmfusion-developers-le...@lists.rpmfusion.org
Re: Orphaning qt5-qtwebengine-freeworld
On Tue, Sep 11, 2018 14:43:03 +0200, Kevin Kofler wrote: > Hi, > > I intend to orphan qt5-qtwebengine-freeworld, along with the Fedora > qt5-qtwebengine package. Please see: > https://www.spinics.net/lists/fedora-devel/msg247677.html > for the full story. > > I think it would be best if it were picked up by the same person also > picking up qt5-qtwebengine in Fedora. Thanks for all your work on the package, Kevin, both here and in Fedora. -- Thanks, Regards, Ankur Sinha "FranciscoD" https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Ankursinha Time zone: Europe/London signature.asc Description: PGP signature ___ rpmfusion-developers mailing list -- rpmfusion-developers@lists.rpmfusion.org To unsubscribe send an email to rpmfusion-developers-le...@lists.rpmfusion.org
Re: Ansible help needed to links releasemonitoring.org with rpmfusion bugzilla
On Tue, Jul 24, 2018 19:19:00 +0200, Nicolas Chauvet wrote: > > > > Filed: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/issue/7121 > > Well, I'm not sure to understand why it would be a fedora infrastructure bug. It isn't a bug. I merely request for historical fedmsg data which is possibly inaccessible via datagrepper. > AFAIK we are not allowed to use resources from fedora, so unless there > is any notification for others project I don't get why it would be a > fedora infra issue. All notifications go out to the public fedmsg bus that anyone can consume. So we're not using "resources from Fedora", and I expect it will not be a problem. -- Thanks, Regards, Ankur Sinha "FranciscoD" https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Ankursinha signature.asc Description: PGP signature ___ rpmfusion-developers mailing list -- rpmfusion-developers@lists.rpmfusion.org To unsubscribe send an email to rpmfusion-developers-le...@lists.rpmfusion.org
Re: Ansible help needed to links releasemonitoring.org with rpmfusion bugzilla
On Wed, Jul 18, 2018 09:33:51 -0700, Ankur Sinha wrote: > I'll ask the infra team if they can find me an rpmfusion related anitya > notification to test with when I'm back home in ~10 days, if no one has > done it by then. Filed: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/issue/7121 -- Thanks, Regards, Ankur Sinha "FranciscoD" https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Ankursinha signature.asc Description: PGP signature ___ rpmfusion-developers mailing list -- rpmfusion-developers@lists.rpmfusion.org To unsubscribe send an email to rpmfusion-developers-le...@lists.rpmfusion.org
Re: Ansible help needed to links releasemonitoring.org with rpmfusion bugzilla
On Tue, Jul 17, 2018 17:51:50 +0200, Nicolas Chauvet wrote: > 2018-07-16 23:52 GMT+02:00 Ankur Sinha : > >> ??? > >> It's the rhbz instance. Please try with our own instance! > > > > Well, I would, but I can't find a single fedmsg notification about an > > update to the rpmfusion packages from datagrepper. > so... > why ? > What need to be fixed ? updated , implemented ? I expect it is because one can only access a certain amount of recent fedmsg history, not all of it---and in that period, anitya has not detected a new version for the relatively small rpmfusion package set. I'll ask the infra team if they can find me an rpmfusion related anitya notification to test with when I'm back home in ~10 days, if no one has done it by then. -- Thanks, Regards, Ankur Sinha "FranciscoD" https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Ankursinha signature.asc Description: PGP signature ___ rpmfusion-developers mailing list -- rpmfusion-developers@lists.rpmfusion.org To unsubscribe send an email to rpmfusion-developers-le...@lists.rpmfusion.org
Re: Ansible help needed to links releasemonitoring.org with rpmfusion bugzilla
> ??? > It's the rhbz instance. Please try with our own instance! Well, I would, but I can't find a single fedmsg notification about an update to the rpmfusion packages from datagrepper. -- Thanks, Regards, Ankur Sinha "FranciscoD" https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Ankursinha signature.asc Description: PGP signature ___ rpmfusion-developers mailing list -- rpmfusion-developers@lists.rpmfusion.org To unsubscribe send an email to rpmfusion-developers-le...@lists.rpmfusion.org
Re: Ansible help needed to links releasemonitoring.org with rpmfusion bugzilla
Resending without the image attachment (message held for moderation)
On Mon, Jul 16, 2018 11:06:51 -0700, Ankur Sinha wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 16, 2018 09:18:28 +0200, Nicolas Chauvet wrote:
> > 2018-07-15 23:59 GMT+02:00 Ankur Sinha :
> > Are you able to run a new-hotness instance locally using your own
> > bugzilla account ?
> > Does it work as expected ?
>
> Yes. I've tested it locally as per the instructions in the readme, and
> it works as expected. For example:
>
> > [moksha.hub DEBUG] 'BugzillaTicketFiler' thread 140194990606080 | Worker
> > thread picking a message.
> > [hotness.consumers DEBUG] Received
> > '2018-ed881402-0a81-4710-b7da-7cec4a1256c7'
> > [hotness.consumers INFO] Handling anitya msg
> > '2018-ed881402-0a81-4710-b7da-7cec4a1256c7'
> > [hotness.consumers DEBUG] Checking
> > 'https://pdc.fedoraproject.org/rest_api/v1/component-branches/' to see if
> > vala is retired, {'name': 'master', 'global_component': 'vala', 'type':
> > 'rpm', 'active': True}
> > [hotness.consumers DEBUG] Checking
> > 'https://pagure.io/releng/fedora-scm-requests/raw/master/f/rpms/vala' to
> > see if vala is monitored.
> > [hotness.consumers DEBUG] Getting pkg info from
> > 'https://apps.fedoraproject.org/mdapi/koji/srcpkg/vala'
> > [hotness.consumers INFO] Comparing upstream 0.40.8 against repo
> > 0.40.7-1.fc29
> > [hotness.consumers INFO] OK, 0.40.8 is newer than 0.40.7-1.fc29
> > [bugzilla.bug INFO] Bug 1592463 missing attribute 'bug_status' - doing
> > implicit refresh(). This will be slow, if you want to avoid this, properly
> > use query/getbug include_fields, and set bugzilla.bug_autorefresh = False
> > to force failure.
> > [hotness.bz INFO] Created bug: #1592463 NEW- - vala-0.40.8
> > is available
> > [hotness.bz INFO] Filed new bug
> > 'https://partner-bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1592463'
> > [hotness.consumers INFO] publishing topic 'update.bug.file'
> > [fedmsg.core DEBUG] Trying to bind to tcp://127.0.0.1:3032
> > [fedmsg.core DEBUG] Trying to bind to tcp://127.0.0.1:3033
> > [hotness.consumers INFO] Filed Bugzilla #1592463
>
> The filed bug is here:
> https://partner-bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1592463
>
--
Thanks,
Regards,
Ankur Sinha "FranciscoD"
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Ankursinha
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
___
rpmfusion-developers mailing list -- rpmfusion-developers@lists.rpmfusion.org
To unsubscribe send an email to rpmfusion-developers-le...@lists.rpmfusion.org
Ansible help needed to links releasemonitoring.org with rpmfusion bugzilla
Hello, I need a bit of help with bug 4897. It requires some Ansible work, and unfortunately, I don't know much about it and don't have the time to learn it at the moment either. It's probably easy for folks that use Ansible daily. Could someone please take a look and open the required PR? [1] https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=4897 -- Thanks, Regards, Ankur Sinha "FranciscoD" https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Ankursinha signature.asc Description: PGP signature ___ rpmfusion-developers mailing list -- rpmfusion-developers@lists.rpmfusion.org To unsubscribe send an email to rpmfusion-developers-le...@lists.rpmfusion.org
Linking the IRC channel to the Telegram channel
Hi, I was speaking to the Commops folks about the telegram bridges they maintain to link Fedora IRC channels with Telegram ones. We do have a Telegram channel for RPMFusion[1] but it isn't seeing any activity. Should I work with the Commops team to set up a telegram bridge to link it to #rpmfusion? [1] t.me/rpmfusion_team -- Thanks, Regards, Ankur Sinha "FranciscoD" https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Ankursinha signature.asc Description: PGP signature ___ rpmfusion-developers mailing list -- rpmfusion-developers@lists.rpmfusion.org To unsubscribe send an email to rpmfusion-developers-le...@lists.rpmfusion.org
Re: Github discussion
On Mon, Jun 04, 2018 09:26:01 -0500, Michael Cronenworth wrote: > As I hope you're all aware by now github has been purchased by Microsoft. > > Are there any plans to move RPMFusion from github to gitlab? While I have tracked the mass exodus from GitHub to GitLab, at present, I have not seen any changes to GitHub that would require it. We all have copies of our code, and if we do get to a point where things change at GitHub, we can always move to GitLab/Bitbucket/Pagure. I personally don't think it's required just yet. -- Thanks, Regards, Ankur Sinha "FranciscoD" https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Ankursinha signature.asc Description: PGP signature ___ rpmfusion-developers mailing list -- rpmfusion-developers@lists.rpmfusion.org To unsubscribe send an email to rpmfusion-developers-le...@lists.rpmfusion.org
Updating appstream data for both -free and -nonfree
Hello, I intend to update the appstream data for both -free and -nonfree in the next coming weeks. If you have any issues with your package in this regard, for example it should but does not feature in Gnome-Software, please file a bug against your package and block this tracker bug here. We'll try to fix as many as we can before regenerating the appdata. https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=4915 Also, if you have some free cycles, please feel free to poke around these bugs and see if you can fix them. More hands are always welcome! -- Thanks, Regards, Ankur Sinha "FranciscoD" https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Ankursinha signature.asc Description: PGP signature ___ rpmfusion-developers mailing list -- rpmfusion-developers@lists.rpmfusion.org To unsubscribe send an email to rpmfusion-developers-le...@lists.rpmfusion.org
Re: AppStream metadata and the wiki
On Mon, 2017-11-27 at 17:14 +0100, Nicolas Chauvet wrote: > As you can see, this is the wrong fix, so we are waiting for the > appropriate input so this document can be fixed appropriately. > > thx for your patience +1 Can we please test if the "Supplements:" bit works, and then we can get rid of the wiki page etc? -- Thanks, Regards, Ankur Sinha "FranciscoD" http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Ankursinha signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part ___ rpmfusion-developers mailing list -- rpmfusion-developers@lists.rpmfusion.org To unsubscribe send an email to rpmfusion-developers-le...@lists.rpmfusion.org
Re: AppStream metadata and the wiki
On Fri, 2017-11-24 at 21:42 +, Daniel Rusek wrote: > Can someone please fix it? Thanks! Did you have a chance to check if the RPMFusion appdata is pulled in if Fedora appdata is already installed? That would remove the requirement for any manual intervention (and the info on wiki pages) and things would "just work". -- Thanks, Regards, Ankur Sinha "FranciscoD" https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Ankursinha signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part ___ rpmfusion-developers mailing list -- rpmfusion-developers@lists.rpmfusion.org To unsubscribe send an email to rpmfusion-developers-le...@lists.rpmfusion.org
Re: AppStream metadata and the wiki
On Thu, 2017-11-23 at 13:41 +0100, Nicolas Chauvet wrote: > I haven't started a new installation from scratch recently, but when > I've checked, the rpmfusion appdata package had a Supplements: > appdata, so they should be installed when the (fedora) appdata > package > is already installed. > > However this should be done on the next dnf update (once the > rpmfusion-*-release are available). > > Can't you reproduce ? I had totally forgotten about this too, and similarly, I haven't done a fresh install in a few releases to be able to test this. Could someone please check and let us know if this works? If it does (as it should), we won't need the wiki page and the other workarounds. -- Thanks, Regards, Ankur Sinha "FranciscoD" https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Ankursinha signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part ___ rpmfusion-developers mailing list -- rpmfusion-developers@lists.rpmfusion.org To unsubscribe send an email to rpmfusion-developers-le...@lists.rpmfusion.org
Re: AppStream metadata and the wiki
On Thu, 2017-11-23 at 14:40 +, Sérgio Basto wrote: > Please contact the author of this page FrancisoD Is that page also protected? I was hoping anyone could edit it rather than waiting for me. :/ -- Thanks, Regards, Ankur Sinha "FranciscoD" https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Ankursinha signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part ___ rpmfusion-developers mailing list -- rpmfusion-developers@lists.rpmfusion.org To unsubscribe send an email to rpmfusion-developers-le...@lists.rpmfusion.org
Re: HEAD up about appdata files in RPM Fusion.
On Fri, 2017-01-27 at 03:36 +, Sérgio Basto wrote: > we got 3 opened tickets with appdata stuff > bug 1 : https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2998 > comment 10 have lots of information > https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2998#c10 We need to work on the automation bit - but I don't think even Fedora has done it yet. Richard manually updates the appdata and pushes it to repos, doesn't he? I'm happy to do it from time to time, and others are more than welcome to co-maintain the package and do it too. > > the other 2 bug reports can be closed [2]? since f23 is already EOL > and > other repos have rpmfusion-free-appstream-data and nonfree [3] > packages > ? > > [2] > https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=3657 > https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=3658 > > [3] > https://pkgs.rpmfusion.org/cgit/free/rpmfusion-free-appstream-data.gi > t/ > https://pkgs.rpmfusion.org/cgit/nonfree/rpmfusion-nonfree-appstream-d > ata.git/ I've closed these now. -- Thanks, Regards, Ankur Sinha signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part ___ rpmfusion-developers mailing list -- rpmfusion-developers@lists.rpmfusion.org To unsubscribe send an email to rpmfusion-developers-le...@lists.rpmfusion.org
Re: [ANNOUNCE] pkgdb is live at rpmfusion.org !
On Mon, 2016-10-17 at 15:33 +0200, Hans de Goede wrote: > +1 Many many thanks to Nicolas for all his hardwork to make > rpmfusion great again! +1 I'm so chuffed that F25 and rawhide are working too. Thank you so much Nicolas and everyone else that's worked on the infra :) -- Thanks, Regards, Ankur Sinha "FranciscoD" http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Ankursinha signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: [ANNOUNCE] New infra has rised up (finally)
On Tue, 2016-05-17 at 08:03 -0500, Richard Shaw wrote: > This is great news! I wish I had both the time and expertise to have > been more helpful so thank you very much for your efforts! +1 Thanks, Nicholas. -- Thanks, Regards, Ankur Sinha "FranciscoD" http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Ankursinha signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: (on list) Re: State of the RPM Fusion repository for f22
On Sun, 2015-07-12 at 00:01 +0100, Sérgio Basto wrote: On Seg, 2015-06-08 at 00:14 +0200, Nicolas Chauvet wrote: I still need to discover how to properly mirror the git modules to github, but that's a low priority WRT having the pkgs.rpmfusion.org up and running. I found this: https://help.github.com/articles/about-github-mirrors/ which says one needs a post receive hook that automatically pushes commits to a mirror repository on github. I can ask the fedora infra folks for details if required? I think they even have fedmsg setup on the fedora-infra-application github repos - I remember seeing messages. -- Thanks, Regards, Ankur Sinha FranciscoD http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Ankursinha signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: k9copy - k9copy-reloaded
On Fri, 2015-05-29 at 00:26 +0100, Sérgio Basto wrote: 22573 (k9copy): Build on target fedora-21-rpmfusion_free succeeded. Build logs may be found at http://buildsys.rpmfusion.org/logs/fedora-21-rpmfusion_free/22573 -k9copy-3.0.3-1.fc21/ Done ! Thanks, Sergio, If/when you rebuild the package for devel and F22, can you please include the appdata file in the package too? https://raw.githubusercontent.com/sanjayankur31/rpmfusion -appdata/master/appdata-extra-free/desktop/k9copy.appdata.xml Of course, please feel free to improve it. -- Thanks, Regards, Ankur Sinha FranciscoD http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Ankursinha signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
http://rpmfusion.org/keys does not list F22 keys
Hi, A user just popped in to #fedora asking where he could find the rpmfusion key signatures for Fedora 22. They're not up on the page: http://rpmfusion.org/keys Could the page please be updated? I'd do it but I don't have write permissions to the page. The keys are available here, though: http://keys.fedoraproject.org/pks/lookup?search=0xA6708DA3op=vindex -- Thanks, Regards, Ankur Sinha FranciscoD http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Ankursinha signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: k9copy - k9copy-reloaded
On Fri, 2015-05-29 at 14:26 +0100, Sérgio Basto wrote: Lets try upload to upstream, please, is the better solution isn't ? https://bugs.launchpad.net/k9copy-reloaded I already put there patches from RPMFusion Yes, but I cannot possibly create 100+ upstream bugzilla accounts and send them the appdata files by myself - maintainers would probably already have accounts and could do it, hopefully :) Having said that, a number of RPMFusion packages do not have an active upstream, so for them, the appdata will just have to be carried in the srpm. -- Thanks, Regards, Ankur Sinha FranciscoD http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Ankursinha signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: Appdata for F22
On Mon, 2015-05-25 at 21:48 +0100, Ankur Sinha wrote: On Mon, 2015-05-25 at 20:10 +0100, Ankur Sinha wrote: Anyone? So, I went ahead and added appdata files for all the rpmfusion packages that can show up in gnome-software - gui applications that have icons, basically. The appdata files are here https://github.com/sanjayankur31/rpmfusion-appdata If you maintain such a package, please consider including the appdata file in the rpmfusion package itself - and when you do, please let me know and I'll remove it from the github repo. For the time being, I've used these appdata files and generated the appdata - the apps show up in gnome-software now. For example: http://ankursinha.in/files/misc/rpmfusion/mixxx-gs.png The review tickets are still waiting. Will someone please review them? https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=3657 https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=3658 The rpms/srpms/specs are here: http://ankursinha.in/files/misc/rpmfusion/ Since gnome-software needs screenshots too, these are stored here for the time being: https://ankursinha.fedorapeople.org/rpmfusion-appdata/ The should eventually be moved to rpmfusion infra once infra starts generating appdata itself. -- Thanks, Regards, Ankur Sinha FranciscoD http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Ankursinha signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
k9copy - k9copy-reloaded
Hi, I just noticed that k9copy is no longer available, and a fork referred to as k9copy-reloaded is now being maintained. This implies k9copy should be orphaned and k9copy-reloaded added to the repos as a fresh package. Should I file a bug for this some place? http://k9copy-reloaded.sourceforge.net/#Overview -- Thanks, Regards, Ankur Sinha FranciscoD http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Ankursinha signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: Appdata for F22
On Mon, 2015-05-25 at 20:10 +0100, Ankur Sinha wrote: Anyone? A temporary repository with appdata files is here: https://github.com/sanjayankur31/rpmfusion-appdata I've started adding files to it and will update the rpms when I've done a few. Please feel free to open pull requests if you'd like to help. If you're the maintainer of one of the packages, feel free to include the written appdata file in the rpmfusion package and if possible, send it upstream too. -- Thanks, Regards, Ankur Sinha FranciscoD http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Ankursinha signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: Appdata for F22
On Fri, 2015-05-22 at 11:28 +0100, Ankur Sinha wrote: I've generated and submitted appdata for both repositories here: https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=3658 ;- nonfree https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=3657 ;- free I'll be happy to swap reviews to try and get these in the repos before the F22 release. Anyone? -- Thanks, Regards, Ankur Sinha FranciscoD http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Ankursinha signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: Appdata for F22
On Tue, 2015-05-12 at 11:16 +0100, Ankur Sinha wrote: What do you folks think? Hello, I've generated and submitted appdata for both repositories here: https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=3658 - nonfree https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=3657 - free I'll be happy to swap reviews to try and get these in the repos before the F22 release. -- Thanks, Regards, Ankur Sinha FranciscoD http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Ankursinha signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: Appdata for F22
On Fri, 2015-05-22 at 11:28 +0100, Ankur Sinha wrote: I'll be happy to swap reviews to try and get these in the repos before the F22 release. Just a note - very few packages have appdata right now. Some of them have appdata files upstream and should receive them with the next update. For other packages that have dead upstreams and things, may I file bugs and request maintainers to carry individual appdata files like the Fedora repositories do? -- Thanks, Regards, Ankur Sinha FranciscoD http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Ankursinha signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: State of the RPM Fusion repository for f22
On Tue, 2015-05-12 at 18:07 +0200, Sergio Pascual wrote: Hello, the nonfree f22 repository seems to be missing from mirrors # dnf update Failed to synchronize cache for repo 'rpmfusion-nonfree' from ' http://mirrors.rpmfusion.org/mirrorlist?repo=nonfree-fedora -22arch=x86_64': Cannot prepare internal mirrorlist: No URLs in mirrorlist, disabling. Last metadata expiration check performed 0:05:06 ago on Tue May 12 17:59:48 2015. Dependencies resolved. Nothing to do. Complete! and ina web browser http://mirrors.rpmfusion.org/mirrorlist?repo=nonfree-fedora -22arch=x86_64 # repo = nonfree-fedora-22 arch = x86_64 error: invalid repo or arch # following repositories are available: ... Erm, not relevant to the thread, but that's known. The nonfree part hasn't been pushed yet. Anyway, no comments about appdata then? -- Thanks, Regards, Ankur Sinha FranciscoD http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Ankursinha signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: State of the RPM Fusion repository for f22
On Tue, 2015-05-12 at 17:24 +0100, Ankur Sinha wrote: Erm, not relevant to the thread, but that's known. The nonfree part hasn't been pushed yet. Anyway, no comments about appdata then? Yikes, sorry, wrong thread - low on coffee :/ But yea, non free is still a WIP. -- Thanks, Regards, Ankur Sinha FranciscoD http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Ankursinha signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Appdata for F22
Hi, I'd really like to work on having appdata for the F22 release - it makes it easier for users to install software via gnome-software. We do have a task filed here[1], but until the infra switch is completed, that cannot be implemented. In the meantime, I suggest we manually generate appdata and add an extra package that the release rpms can pull in. I'm more than happy to generate the appdata and maintain this package until it can be automated. What do you folks think? [1] https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2998 -- Thanks, Regards, Ankur Sinha FranciscoD http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Ankursinha signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: Review swap - Stella - A multi-platform Atari 2600 VCS emulator
On Fri, 2015-05-08 at 01:53 +0100, Sérgio Basto wrote: Hi Ankur Sinha On Dom, 2015-04-26 at 19:51 +0100, Sérgio Basto wrote: On Dom, 2015-04-26 at 10:27 +0100, Ankur Sinha wrote: On Sun, 2015-04-26 at 09:25 +0100, Ankur Sinha wrote: Sure. I'll send you a patch on the rpmfusion-devel list. Building stella-4_6_1-1_fc21 on rawhide-free check out http://cvs.rpmfusion.org/viewvc/*checkout*/rpms/stella/devel/stella.spec?revision=1.19root=free ; Oh, great! Thank you Sergio. I'm sorry I didn't get down to sending you a patch yet. I'll be happy to help maintain Stella if the need does arise. -- Thanks, Regards, Ankur Sinha FranciscoD http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Ankursinha signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: Warnings while upgrading to F22 beta using fedup
On Wed, 2015-04-15 at 14:33 +0200, Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski wrote: There's no RPMFusion for F22 or rawhide yet. That's what I'd thought. What are the packages at the URL though? -- Thanks, Regards, Ankur Sinha FranciscoD http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Ankursinha signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Warnings while upgrading to F22 beta using fedup
Hi, I'm testing an f21-f22 update using fedup. I used this URL for rpmfusion-f22 and got the following warnings from fedup: baseurl=http://download1.rpmfusion.org/nonfree/fedora/development/22/$basearch/os/ (and so on for free) WARNING: potential problems with upgrade vlc-core-2.2.0-1.fc21.x86_64 (no replacement) requires 1:freerdp-libs-1.2.0-0.6.beta.1.fc21.2.x86_64 (replaced by 2:freerdp-libs-1.2.0-0.9.git.24a752a.fc22.x86_64) libavdevice-2.4.8-1.fc21.x86_64 (no replacement) requires libcdio-paranoia-10.2+0.90+1-4.fc21.x86_64 (replaced by libcdio-paranoia-10.2+0.93+1-1.fc22.x86_64) 1:mpd-0.18.16-3.fc22.x86_64 (replaced by 1:mpd-0.19.2-1.fc21.x86_64) requires libcdio-paranoia-10.2+0.90+1-4.fc21.x86_64 (replaced by libcdio-paranoia-10.2+0.93+1-1.fc22.x86_64) 1:mpd-0.18.16-3.fc22.x86_64 (replaced by 1:mpd-0.19.2-1.fc21.x86_64) requires 1:mpd-0.18.16-3.fc22.x86_64 (replaced by 1:mpd-0.19.2-1.fc21.x86_64) darktable-1.6.4-1.fc21.x86_64 (no replacement) requires ilmbase-2.1.0-3.fc21.x86_64 (replaced by ilmbase-2.2.0-1.fc22.x86_64) 1:mpd-0.18.16-3.fc22.x86_64 (replaced by 1:mpd-0.19.2-1.fc21.x86_64) requires mpich-3.1-4.fc21.x86_64 (replaced by mpich-3.1-4.fc22.x86_64) 1:mpd-0.18.16-3.fc22.x86_64 (replaced by 1:mpd-0.19.2-1.fc21.x86_64) requires libcdio-paranoia-10.2+0.90+1-4.fc21.x86_64 (replaced by libcdio-paranoia-10.2+0.93+1-1.fc22.x86_64) firefox-37.0.1-1.fc21.x86_64 (no replacement) requires libicu-52.1-5.fc21.x86_64 (replaced by libicu-54.1-1.fc22.x86_64) gstreamer1-plugins-ugly-1.4.3-1.fc21.x86_64 (no replacement) requires libcdio-0.92-3.fc21.x86_64 (replaced by libcdio-0.93-2.fc22.x86_64) gstreamer-plugins-ugly-0.10.19-18.fc21.x86_64 (no replacement) requires libcdio-0.92-3.fc21.x86_64 (replaced by libcdio-0.93-2.fc22.x86_64) publican-4.2.6-0.fc21.noarch (no replacement) requires 4:perl-5.18.4-306.fc21.x86_64 (replaced by 4:perl-5.20.2-321.fc22.x86_64) 1:mpd-0.18.16-3.fc22.x86_64 (replaced by 1:mpd-0.19.2-1.fc21.x86_64) requires libcdio-0.92-3.fc21.x86_64 (replaced by libcdio-0.93-2.fc22.x86_64) darktable-1.6.4-1.fc21.x86_64 (no replacement) requires OpenEXR-libs-2.1.0-5.fc21.x86_64 (replaced by OpenEXR-libs-2.2.0-1.fc22.x86_64) 1:mpd-0.18.16-3.fc22.x86_64 (replaced by 1:mpd-0.19.2-1.fc21.x86_64) requires libicu-52.1-5.fc21.x86_64 (replaced by libicu-54.1-1.fc22.x86_64) perl-Carp-1.36-1.fc21.noarch (no replacement) requires 4:perl-5.18.4-306.fc21.x86_64 (replaced by 4:perl-5.20.2-321.fc22.x86_64) Some of these packages are from RPMFusion - Do these packages need rebuilds? -- Thanks, Regards, Ankur Sinha FranciscoD http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Ankursinha signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: ffmpeg-2.4 released
On Fri, 2014-09-26 at 14:29 +0200, Xavier Bachelot wrote: mplayer I'm still seeing this on my F21 up to date system: Error: nothing provides libavutil.so.54()(64bit) needed by mplayer-1.1-28.20140919svn.fc21.x86_64. nothing provides libavutil.so.54()(64bit) needed by mplayer-1.1-28.20140919svn.fc21.x86_64 Is this related to the rebuild, or is it another issue? -- Thanks, Warm regards, Ankur (FranciscoD) http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Ankursinha Join Fedora! Come talk to us! http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_Join_SIG signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: ffmpeg-2.4 released
On Wed, 2014-10-01 at 19:23 +0200, Julian Sikorski wrote: t is related. Try doing # yum downgrade ffmpeg\* I only have 2.3.3 here: [asinha@localhost 99_Current_papers]$ rpm -qa \*ffmpeg\* ffmpeg-libs-2.3.3-3.fc21.x86_64 gstreamer-ffmpeg-0.10.13-13.fc21.x86_64 ffmpeg-2.3.3-3.fc21.x86_64 Should I still attempt the downgrade? -- Thanks, Warm regards, Ankur (FranciscoD) http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Ankursinha Join Fedora! Come talk to us! http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_Join_SIG signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: ffmpeg-2.4 released
On Thu, 2014-09-25 at 10:06 +0200, Xavier Bachelot wrote: xine-lib passed a local rebuild and is now building in plague. Hi, I get this at the moment: Error: package mpd-1:0.18.11-2.fc21.x86_64 requires libavcodec.so.55()(64bit), but none of the providers can be installed. package vlc-core-2.1.5-2.fc21.x86_64 requires libavcodec.so.55()(64bit), but none of the providers can be installed. package xbmc-13.2-1.fc21.x86_64 requires libavcodec.so.55()(64bit), but none of the providers can be installed. package mplayer-1.1-26.20140806svn.fc21.x86_64 requires mplayer-common = 1.1-26.20140806svn.fc21, but none of the providers can be installed I'm assuming this will fix itself once the rebuild is over? -- Thanks, Warm regards, Ankur (FranciscoD) http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Ankursinha Join Fedora! Come talk to us! http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_Join_SIG signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: [F21] VLC: dlopen: cannot load any more object with static TLS [Was: VLC does not support the audio or video format h264]
On Tue, 2014-08-26 at 10:39 +0200, Hans de Goede wrote: Yes, this seems to be the same problem as with running calibre on f21 / rawhide: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1124987 Esp see: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1124987#c15 You could try this glibc scratch build, which increases the static TLS limit: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=7429597 Grab it while it is still around, it will likely be recycled soon. If this helps you should probably file a bug against glibc in Fedora, linking to the calibre bug report. Ah! Yes! The scratch build fixed it. VLC ran properly without errors. I'll file a new bug and reference the calibre bug as you suggest. Thanks a bunch :) -- Thanks, Warm regards, Ankur (FranciscoD) http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Ankursinha Join Fedora! Come talk to us! http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_Join_SIG signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: [F21] VLC: dlopen: cannot load any more object with static TLS [Was: VLC does not support the audio or video format h264]
On Tue, 2014-08-26 at 19:12 +1000, Ankur Sinha wrote: I'll file a new bug and reference the calibre bug as you suggest. Bug filed here: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1133843 -- Thanks, Warm regards, Ankur (FranciscoD) http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Ankursinha Join Fedora! Come talk to us! http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_Join_SIG signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: [F21] VLC does not support the audio or video format h264
On Tue, 2014-08-26 at 11:04 +1000, Ankur Sinha wrote: I've removed and reinstalled vlc and related packages and also deleted any vlc configuration in the home directory but there still isn't any change. VLC plays the audio, but not the video of the file. Something is off here. I can't play webM either. Even totem plays the file just fine: [asinha@localhost Gunda (1998)]$ vlc Gunda\ \(1998\).webm VLC media player 2.1.5 Rincewind (revision 2.1.4-49-gdab6cb5) [0x25a2048] main libvlc: Running vlc with the default interface. Use 'cvlc' to use vlc without interface. [0x7fd4ccc098b8] main decoder error: corrupt module: /usr/lib64/vlc/plugins/codec/libavcodec_plugin.so [0x7fd4ccc098b8] main decoder error: no suitable decoder module for fourcc `VP80'. VLC probably does not support this sound or video format. [asinha@localhost Gunda (1998)]$ file Gunda\ \(1998\).webm Gunda (1998).webm: WebM -- Thanks, Warm regards, Ankur (FranciscoD) http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Ankursinha Join Fedora! Come talk to us! http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_Join_SIG signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: [F21] VLC does not support the audio or video format h264
On Tue, 2014-08-26 at 02:54 +0100, Sérgio Basto wrote: my vm for tests is an Fedora 21, so I'm saying that is working here in a Fedora 21 . /me scratches head. What else do you think we can do to debug this? If you come on IRC sometime, please drop me a ping and we could maybe look at this? -- Thanks, Warm regards, Ankur (FranciscoD) http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Ankursinha Join Fedora! Come talk to us! http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_Join_SIG signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: [F21] VLC: dlopen: cannot load any more object with static TLS [Was: VLC does not support the audio or video format h264]
On Tue, 2014-08-26 at 11:55 +1000, Ankur Sinha wrote: Something is off here. I can't play webM either. Even totem plays the file just fine: This is what I get when I run it with -vvv: 0x7fd4c0008ac8] main input debug: Buffering 0% [0x7fd4d4003b38] mkv demux debug: Starting the UI Hook [0x7fd4d4003b38] main demux debug: using demux module mkv [0x7fd4c0008ac8] main input debug: looking for a subtitle file in /home/asinha/Downloads/Gunda (1998)/ [0x7fd4d4c045b8] main decoder debug: looking for decoder module matching any: 40 candidates [0x7fd4d4c045b8] main decoder warning: cannot load module `/usr/lib64/vlc/plugins/codec/libavcodec_plugin.so' (dlopen: cannot load any more object with static TLS) [0x7fd4d4c045b8] main decoder error: corrupt module: /usr/lib64/vlc/plugins/codec/libavcodec_plugin.so [0x7fd4d4c045b8] main decoder debug: no decoder modules matched [0x7fd4d4c045b8] main decoder error: no suitable decoder module for fourcc `VP80'. VLC probably does not support this sound or video format. [0x7fd4d4c045b8] main decoder debug: killing decoder fourcc `VP80', 0 PES in FIFO [0x7fd4d4c045b8] main decoder debug: looking for decoder module matching any: 40 candidates [0x7fd4d4c045b8] main decoder debug: using decoder module vorbis [0x7fd4d4c045b8] vorbis decoder debug: channels:2 samplerate:44100 bitrate:128000 [0x7fd4d4c62358] main demux meta debug: looking for meta reader module matching any: 2 candidates Irrespective of the file I try to play, it's always the same error: [0x7fa9c8c018f8] main demux debug: using demux module mp4 [0x7fa9d9b8] main input debug: looking for a subtitle file in /home/asinha/Downloads/ [0x7fa9cad10c38] main decoder debug: looking for decoder module matching any: 40 candidates [0x7fa9cad10c38] main decoder warning: cannot load module `/usr/lib64/vlc/plugins/codec/libavcodec_plugin.so' (dlopen: cannot load any more object with static TLS) [0x7fa9cad10c38] main decoder error: corrupt module: /usr/lib64/vlc/plugins/codec/libavcodec_plugin.so [0x7fa9cad10c38] main decoder debug: no decoder modules matched [0x7fa9cad10c38] main decoder error: no suitable decoder module for fourcc `h264'. VLC probably does not support this sound or video format. [0x7fa9cad10c38] main decoder debug: killing decoder fourcc `h264', 0 PES in FIFO [0x7fa9cad10c38] main decoder debug: looking for decoder module matching any: 40 candidates [0x7fa9cad10c38] main decoder debug: using decoder module faad [0x7fa9cad2c668] main demux meta debug: looking for meta reader module matching any: 2 candidates [0x7fa9cad2c668] lua demux meta debug: Trying Lua scripts in /home/asinha/.local/share/vlc/lua/meta/reader I've tried to see what the error means. No luck yet. Anyone have a clue? -- Thanks, Warm regards, Ankur (FranciscoD) http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Ankursinha Join Fedora! Come talk to us! http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_Join_SIG signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
[F21] VLC does not support the audio or video format h264
Hi, Probably a known issue, but I couldn't find much info on it. I get this error when I try to play a video in VLC: - VLC does not support the audio or video format h264 Not really sure what's causing it. I have the x264 packages installed. -- Thanks, Warm regards, Ankur (FranciscoD) http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Ankursinha Join Fedora! Come talk to us! http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_Join_SIG signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: [F21] VLC does not support the audio or video format h264
On Sun, 2014-08-24 at 13:37 +1000, Ankur Sinha wrote: - VLC does not support the audio or video format h264 Running it from the terminal gives me this: [0x1800118] main libvlc: Running vlc with the default interface. Use 'cvlc' to use vlc without interface. [0x7fcf24c1ddf8] main decoder error: corrupt module: /usr/lib64/vlc/plugins/codec/libavcodec_plugin.so [0x7fcf24c1ddf8] main decoder error: no suitable decoder module for fourcc `h264'. VLC probably does not support this sound or video format. -- Thanks, Warm regards, Ankur (FranciscoD) http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Ankursinha Join Fedora! Come talk to us! http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_Join_SIG signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: AppData in RPMFusion
On Tue, 2014-08-12 at 11:34 +0300, Nikos Roussos wrote: +1. I think it's really frustrating for end users that they can't currently find RPMfusion applications through Software Center (which is the default and only preinstalled application for installing new software). +1 The fedora packages have already been receiving quite a bit of love when it comes to appdata. It'll be a good idea to have it for rpmfusion as well. This is all from the point of a normal, non advanced end user who will use gnome-software to install applications. More advanced users that do not use gnome-software and prefer yum/yumex/dnf etc. will know that they can add the package to their list of excludes if they want to save their bandwidth. This isn't rpmfusion specific, this applies to any repositories and a general usage of gnome-software. -- Thanks, Warm regards, Ankur (FranciscoD) http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Ankursinha Join Fedora! Come talk to us! http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_Join_SIG signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: AppData in RPMFusion
On Wed, 2014-08-13 at 18:27 +0300, Nikos Roussos wrote: Elad's proposal is about deciding if we want RPMFusion packages to be accessible to Desktop Fedora users or not. It's that simple. Bringing the thread back to topic. Questions that need answering: 0. Do we want to ship appdata for RPMFusion packages? If we do: 1. do we start filing bugs with packages that do not currently ship appdata files asking maintainers to: a. ship an appdata file b. send the file upstream for inclusion 2. Who will generate the metadata and where? 3. How will the metadata be packaged to ship in the repositories? Please see my comment on the tracker bug for more details on the complete workflow: https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2998#c4 -- Thanks, Warm regards, Ankur (FranciscoD) http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Ankursinha Join Fedora! Come talk to us! http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_Join_SIG signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: AppData in RPMFusion
On Thu, 2014-08-14 at 02:07 +1000, Ankur Sinha wrote: 2. Who will generate the metadata and where? 3. How will the metadata be packaged to ship in the repositories? I did a trial run today. Interested folks can see the results on the bug here: https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2998#c10 The generated metadata and rpm are only about 350K at the moment. -- Thanks, Warm regards, Ankur (FranciscoD) http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Ankursinha Join Fedora! Come talk to us! http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_Join_SIG signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Appdata for RPMFusion (again)
Hi, I had brought up the subject of appdata for rpmfusion packages a couple of months ago. With F21 coming up fast, it'll be good to make some headway in this regard. A bug is already filed here[1]. Could rpmfusion package maintainers please give their suggestions there? Like I've said in the bug, I'll be happy to maintain an appdata package if that's the way to go for the time being. [1] https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2998 -- Thanks, Warm regards, Ankur (FranciscoD) http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Ankursinha Join Fedora! Come talk to us! http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_Join_SIG signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: Packaging 3-rd party repositories in rpmfusion
On Wed, 2014-01-29 at 12:12 +0100, Alec Leamas wrote: To handle this, my simple proposal is that we handles packaged yum repositories like this: - It's ok to package yum repositories listed in [4]. - If anyone wants to change the list in [4] this should be announced here on rpmfusion-devel, and not done until we agree on it (similar to how we handle bundling exceptions). Thoughts. out there? --alec Hi, I think it's OK to ship third party repository configurations in rpm packages at rpmfusion. For instance, a rpmfusion-dropbox that contains the single dropbox.repo file is fine. We're not redistributing the software itself, we're just providing the repository configuration that will enable users to skip going to each individual site and setting it up themselves. This would also cement rpmfusion as *the* go-to place for end users. While I wouldn't want such a package to go into Fedora since it holds a much more strict line between free and non free software, I think RPMFusion's slightly more relaxed principles permit this. http://rpmfusion.org/FoundingPrinciples This: 'this includes software with public available source-code that has no commercial use-like restrictions' would mean that we shouldn't. However, we're not providing the software, just the configuration files. I also hope that this will help reduce the number of users resorting to third party scripts that set stuff up for them without knowing what these scripts actually do. At least this way, they'll know exactly what packages are being installed. One concern is that some of the rpms that third parties provide do ship their own repo files. So, after the user installs a package, he might end up with two repo files? We'll have to use proper conflicts in the specs. What about GPG keys? (The adobe-release package ships a repo file and a GPG key.) If we do go down this path, I'd also suggest that we include a README file with each such package that clearly states: - this is only a repo file - it just points you to the repository hosted by the third party - you're getting the software directly from the vendors repository - it is only for convenience - we cannot support bug/feature requests; they go upstream (or wherever) - the source code of this software is not available. Please use at your own risk, i.e., you trust the developer. Lastly, we may need to speak to the third party devs and confirm if it's OK to ship their repo files in the first place? -- Thanks, Warm regards, Ankur (FranciscoD) http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Ankursinha Join Fedora! Come talk to us! http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_Join_SIG signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
FYI: Copr (from the fedora-devel list)
Forwarded Message From: Miroslav Suchý msu...@redhat.com Reply-to: Development discussions related to Fedora de...@lists.fedoraproject.org To: de...@lists.fedoraproject.org Subject: Copr Date: Thu, 07 Nov 2013 13:54:40 +0100 Dear developers and Fedora contributors, let me introduce Copr: http://copr-fe.cloud.fedoraproject.org/ Copr is a build system for third party repositories. It is intended for: * upstream teams - to make nightly and test builds * layered applications - if you build on top of Fedora, but you are not part of Fedora * packages not yet ready to be included in official Fedora repositories How it works? You provide src.rpm, we will provide resulting yum repo for RHEL 5,6 and Fedora 18, 19, 20... But see WARNING on bottom of this mail. I prepared quick tutorial for you: https://fedorahosted.org/copr/wiki/ScreenshotsTutorial and FAQ: https://fedorahosted.org/copr/wiki/UserDocs#FAQ Everybody with FAS account can build there. If you want to use command line client, you should install copr-cli from updates-testing. If you have ideas, questions, comments feel free to use one of our communication channels https://fedorahosted.org/copr/#Communications (mailing list is prefered) WARNING: Please do not rely on this service in production. This is very early release (following release early, release often). First of all, this service works in simple set-up, where resulting yum repos are *not* backed up. Yet. This is not yet officially part of Fedora infrastructure, so when Copr fails, it can take several hours to be restored. And yes, our WebUI is not perfect. It's work in progress. And since Copr can build packages already, I decided to publicly announce it, so you can experiment with it. We are working on Copr on full steam and in upcoming days you can expect: * improvements in WebUI * ability to build Software Collections there -- Miroslav Suchy, RHCE, RHCDS Red Hat, Software Engineer, #brno, #devexp, #fedora-buildsys -- devel mailing list de...@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct -- Thanks, Warm regards, Ankur (FranciscoD) http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Ankursinha Join Fedora! Come talk to us! http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_Join_SIG signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: Non-redistributable packages: Skype, spotify, ...
On Fri, 2013-11-01 at 02:42 +0100, Kevin Kofler wrote: I wrote: I'm going to complain about this to FPC, and if they ignore the issue, escalate it to FESCo. This kind of package has no business being in Fedora! https://fedorahosted.org/fpc/ticket/362 Thank you for filing the ticket, Kevin. Even if lpf makes it easier for users to use skype/spotify/whatnot, it's promoting non-foss software. Not only is it against the packaging guidelines, it's quite against our foundation of freedom too. I think packaging stuff up for rpmfusion as we've already been doing is the way to go. [1] http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Foundations -- Thanks, Warm regards, Ankur (FranciscoD) http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Ankursinha Join Fedora! Come talk to us! http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_Join_SIG signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: Appstream data for rpmfusion
On Tue, 2013-10-22 at 23:28 +1100, David Timms wrote: My understanding is that we can best play a part by providing upstream with suitable content that can get used, and included in the upstream release tarballs. I guess that is a bit of work, so if there are any helpers who feel like having the non-technical application descriptions published via appstream info... here is your chance ! I think it's simplest if all maintainers that'd like their packages to show up in gnome-software write up appdata files and send them upstream. Until upstream makes a new release that includes the appdata file, we can just include them as SOURCEX in our spec files. In any case, the appdata for gnome-software needs to be generated so gnome-software can list applications available in the repository. I've already run the process once, as reported in my earlier mail. The results are here[1]. If appdata files aren't available, it uses information from the desktop files, but this isn't complete, since it lacks screenshots and a proper description most of the time. I'd be happy to package this up and make it available in the repos for F20, until we can set up infra to automatically generate the info as Nicholas mentions. [1] http://ankursinha.in/rpmfusion-gnome-software/ -- Thanks, Warm regards, Ankur (FranciscoD) http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Ankursinha Join Fedora! Come talk to us! http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_Join_SIG signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: Appstream data for rpmfusion
On Tue, 2013-10-22 at 20:33 +0200, Nicolas Chauvet wrote: I would say that the implementation really must take into accounts third parties vendors, not only one third party repository like us. And not only the vendor ... 2cts If appdata files are provided by upstream, all vendors will be able to generate and ship data that gnome-software needs. There is probably few apps compatible yet in our repo. Is there a list ? Any package that contains a desktop file should be a candidate I'd think. Thx for the reminder. Worth to report an infrastructure bug. Filed: https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2998 -- Thanks, Warm regards, Ankur (FranciscoD) http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Ankursinha Join Fedora! Come talk to us! http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_Join_SIG signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: Appstream data for rpmfusion
On Fri, 2013-10-18 at 11:49 +1100, Ankur Sinha wrote: Hi, I just read this on the planet: http://blogs.gnome.org/hughsie/2013/10/16/how-to-generate-appstream-metadata-for-fedora/ Would rpmfusion be able to provide appstream data? (I'm trying out the process on my machine now to see how it works.) Hi, I finished the appdata generation. Here are the stats: Time taken: a measly 30 minutes. This includes downloading the packages etc. The entire directory is about 600-700MB here. The icon and xml tars are quite small too, less than an MB each. You can find all the files here[1]. A screenshot or two from gnome-software are also included[2][3]. I'm yet to figure out if this can be automated, so that it can be triggered after the builds. I'll dig up a little more. Should I file an RFE with on bugzilla for this already? It should be a simple enough patch for the spec. [1] http://ankursinha.in/rpmfusion-gnome-software/ [2] http://ankursinha.in/rpmfusion-gnome-software/vlc-gnome-software-screenshot.png [3] http://ankursinha.in/rpmfusion-gnome-software/xbmc-gnome-software.png Thanks, Warm regards, Ankur (FranciscoD)
Appstream data for rpmfusion
Hi, I just read this on the planet: http://blogs.gnome.org/hughsie/2013/10/16/how-to-generate-appstream-metadata-for-fedora/ Would rpmfusion be able to provide appstream data? (I'm trying out the process on my machine now to see how it works.) -- Thanks, Warm regards, Ankur (FranciscoD) http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Ankursinha Join Fedora! Come talk to us! http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_Join_SIG signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: what left in mass rebuild x264/ffmpeg for F20
On Wed, 2013-10-02 at 14:39 +1000, Ankur Sinha wrote: I'll update it whenever I have cycles. I successfully built mpd for devel. It's a git snapshot of 0.18 since the 0.17 branch doesn't work with the new ffmpeg at all. http://buildsys.rpmfusion.org/logs/fedora-development-rpmfusion_free/18534-mpd-0.18-0.1.git0e0be02.fc20/ -- Thanks, Warm regards, Ankur (FranciscoD) http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Ankursinha Join Fedora! Come talk to us! http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_Join_SIG signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: BuildSys restored re-submit/verify your build
On Wed, 2013-10-02 at 10:54 +0200, Nicolas Chauvet wrote: The root cause of the failure was not specifically related to plague and could have appeared with koji. But that's not a reason not to continue to work on the transition to git/koji. So I still hope to have this transition before f20. Thx Thanks Nicholas. Is there any thing we can do to help? I'm not an infra person myself (not enough to handle a server by myself), but if you could list out the work required, folks could see if there are opportunities that we can pitch in to help at. -- Thanks again, Warm regards, Ankur (FranciscoD) http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Ankursinha Join Fedora! Come talk to us! http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_Join_SIG signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: what left in mass rebuild x264/ffmpeg for F20
On Mon, 2013-09-30 at 21:06 +0100, Sérgio Basto wrote: mpd Like I said earlier, I'll have to update this to a git snapshot to get it to work with the new ffmpeg version. 0.17.5 doesn't work with it. I have a spec ready. I'll update it whenever I have cycles. -- Thanks, Warm regards, Ankur (FranciscoD) http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Ankursinha Join Fedora! Come talk to us! http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_Join_SIG signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: MPD update (Was: Re: Broken dependency: Requires: libavcodec.so.54(LIBAVCODEC_54)(64bit))
On Wed, 2013-09-18 at 22:53 +1000, David Timms wrote: Check for an existing 'upgrade the package/broken dependency/ffmpeg /fail to build from source etc' bug first, and if it doesn't already exist, you can create a new bug. Do not attach SRPM to the bug. Attach a diff -u from the original spec to the upgraded spec file. Then the package maintainer can more easily review the patch, apply the patch and so forth. If this a package that you would like to help maintain going forward, and you are already a Fedora packager, you can request to co-maintain the package. You would then work with the existing maintainer to decide who has time to look at bugs/upgrades etc.. Funny story: I was going to go request co-maintainer status but apparently, I already am a co-maintainer for mpd. I applied and was approved in the F16 cycle according to this bug. I just seem to have completely forgotten about it! https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1954 You mention a successful build. Have you been able to test if the build actually runs / works etc ? Yep. It works for me here: [asinha@ankur fedora-packages]$ rpm -q mpd mpd-0.17.5.89d2d64-1.fc21.x86_64 I'll get in touch with the other maintainers and get this fixed ASAP. It's a git snapshot that I've packaged, so it's not just a straight forward update really. -- Thanks, Warm regards, Ankur (FranciscoD) http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Ankursinha Join Fedora! Come talk to us! http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_Join_SIG signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: MPD update (Was: Re: Broken dependency: Requires: libavcodec.so.54(LIBAVCODEC_54)(64bit))
On Wed, 2013-09-18 at 18:17 +0100, Sérgio Basto wrote: we need compile new gpac 0.5.0 package against new ffmpeg , but doesn't build due a problem in a define [1] that I don't understand if a gcc incompatibility or what . Is gpac a requirement for mpd? Doesn't look like it. I just checked the requires of the latest mpd package in rpmfusion: [asinha@ankur fedora-packages]$ sudo repoquery --requires mpd /bin/sh config(mpd) = 1:0.17.3-3.fc20 libFLAC.so.8()(64bit) libao.so.4()(64bit) libao.so.4(LIBAO4_1.1.0)(64bit) libasound.so.2()(64bit) libasound.so.2(ALSA_0.9)(64bit) libasound.so.2(ALSA_0.9.0)(64bit) libasound.so.2(ALSA_0.9.0rc4)(64bit) libaudiofile.so.1()(64bit) libavahi-client.so.3()(64bit) libavahi-common.so.3()(64bit) libavahi-glib.so.1()(64bit) libavcodec.so.54()(64bit) libavcodec.so.54(LIBAVCODEC_54)(64bit) libavformat.so.54()(64bit) libavformat.so.54(LIBAVFORMAT_54)(64bit) libavutil.so.52()(64bit) libavutil.so.52(LIBAVUTIL_52)(64bit) libbz2.so.1()(64bit) libc.so.6()(64bit) libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.10)(64bit) libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.14)(64bit) libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.15)(64bit) libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.17)(64bit) libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.2.5)(64bit) libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.3.4)(64bit) libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.4)(64bit) libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.9)(64bit) libcurl.so.4()(64bit) libdl.so.2()(64bit) libfaad.so.2()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1()(64bit) libglib-2.0.so.0()(64bit) libgthread-2.0.so.0()(64bit) libid3tag.so.0()(64bit) libjack.so.0()(64bit) libm.so.6()(64bit) libm.so.6(GLIBC_2.2.5)(64bit) libmad.so.0()(64bit) libmikmod.so.3()(64bit) libmms.so.0()(64bit) libmodplug.so.1()(64bit) libmp3lame.so.0()(64bit) libmpcdec.so.5()(64bit) libogg.so.0()(64bit) libpthread.so.0()(64bit) libpthread.so.0(GLIBC_2.2.5)(64bit) libpulse.so.0()(64bit) libpulse.so.0(PULSE_0)(64bit) libsamplerate.so.0()(64bit) libsamplerate.so.0(libsamplerate.so.0.0)(64bit) libsamplerate.so.0(libsamplerate.so.0.1)(64bit) libshout.so.3()(64bit) libspeex.so.1()(64bit) libsqlite3.so.0()(64bit) libstdc++.so.6()(64bit) libtheora.so.0()(64bit) libvorbis.so.0()(64bit) libvorbisenc.so.2()(64bit) libvorbisfile.so.3()(64bit) libwavpack.so.1()(64bit) libz.so.1()(64bit) libzzip-0.so.13()(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH) shadow-utils systemd [asinha@ankur fedora-packages]$ sudo repoquery --provides gpac gpac = 0.5.0-4.fc20 gpac(x86-64) = 0.5.0-4.fc20 [asinha@ankur fedora-packages]$ sudo repoquery --provides gpac-libs gpac-libs = 0.5.0-4.fc20 gpac-libs(x86-64) = 0.5.0-4.fc20 libgpac.so.2()(64bit) After you can rebuild x264, and after that all dependencies , If you build a koji server and put there sources with cvstogit of Ken Dreyer , I could try help you ... I'm slightly confused with this. Why does one need to build a koji server? -- Thanks, Warm regards, Ankur (FranciscoD) http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Ankursinha Join Fedora! Come talk to us! http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_Join_SIG signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: Re: cvstogit updates
Hi Ken, I just looked at your email on your cvs2git script. Considering that Fedora did the same a few releases ago, would it be worth asking releng how they went about it? I found Jesse's post here[1], which says they used the cvs2git tool from cvs2svn[2]. I'm not aware of the work that has already gone into this. Please ignore my mail if it's incoherent. [1] http://jkeating.livejournal.com/76407.html [2] http://cvs2svn.tigris.org/cvs2git.html -- Thanks, Warm regards, Ankur (FranciscoD) http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Ankursinha Join Fedora! Come talk to us! http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_Join_SIG signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Broken dependency: Requires: libavcodec.so.54(LIBAVCODEC_54)(64bit)
Hi, Please forgive me if this is a known issue: [asinha@ankur ~]$ sudo yum install mpd --skip-broken [sudo] password for asinha: Loaded plugins: langpacks, refresh-packagekit Resolving Dependencies -- Running transaction check --- Package mpd.x86_64 1:0.17.3-3.fc20 will be installed -- Processing Dependency: libavcodec.so.54(LIBAVCODEC_54)(64bit) for package: 1:mpd-0.17.3-3.fc20.x86_64 -- Processing Dependency: libavformat.so.54(LIBAVFORMAT_54)(64bit) for package: 1:mpd-0.17.3-3.fc20.x86_64 -- Processing Dependency: libavcodec.so.54()(64bit) for package: 1:mpd-0.17.3-3.fc20.x86_64 -- Processing Dependency: libavformat.so.54()(64bit) for package: 1:mpd-0.17.3-3.fc20.x86_64 -- Processing Dependency: libaudiofile.so.1()(64bit) for package: 1:mpd-0.17.3-3.fc20.x86_64 -- Processing Dependency: libmikmod.so.3()(64bit) for package: 1:mpd-0.17.3-3.fc20.x86_64 -- Processing Dependency: libid3tag.so.0()(64bit) for package: 1:mpd-0.17.3-3.fc20.x86_64 -- Running transaction check --- Package audiofile.x86_64 1:0.3.6-2.fc20 will be installed --- Package libid3tag.x86_64 0:0.15.1b-17.fc20 will be installed --- Package libmikmod.x86_64 0:3.2.0-22.fc20 will be installed --- Package mpd.x86_64 1:0.17.3-3.fc20 will be installed -- Processing Dependency: libavcodec.so.54(LIBAVCODEC_54)(64bit) for package: 1:mpd-0.17.3-3.fc20.x86_64 -- Processing Dependency: libavformat.so.54(LIBAVFORMAT_54)(64bit) for package: 1:mpd-0.17.3-3.fc20.x86_64 -- Processing Dependency: libavcodec.so.54()(64bit) for package: 1:mpd-0.17.3-3.fc20.x86_64 -- Processing Dependency: libavformat.so.54()(64bit) for package: 1:mpd-0.17.3-3.fc20.x86_64 Packages skipped because of dependency problems: 1:audiofile-0.3.6-2.fc20.x86_64 from fedora libid3tag-0.15.1b-17.fc20.x86_64 from fedora libmikmod-3.2.0-22.fc20.x86_64 from fedora 1:mpd-0.17.3-3.fc20.x86_64 from rpmfusion-free-rawhide [asinha@ankur ~]$ Can I do anything to help fix this? I'd like my mpd server running ;) -- Thanks, Warm regards, Ankur (FranciscoD) http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Ankursinha Join Fedora! Come talk to us! http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_Join_SIG signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: Broken dependency: Requires: libavcodec.so.54(LIBAVCODEC_54)(64bit)
On Wed, 2013-09-18 at 05:34 +1000, David Timms wrote: How about using a released version aka fedora 19 ? Excuse me? Is installing an alpha release to help with testing a bad thing nowadays? -- Thanks, Warm regards, Ankur (FranciscoD) http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Ankursinha Join Fedora! Come talk to us! http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_Join_SIG signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: Broken dependency: Requires: libavcodec.so.54(LIBAVCODEC_54)(64bit)
Hi Sergio, On Tue, 2013-09-17 at 18:29 +0100, Sérgio Basto wrote: Builder as stopped (20 of Aug), so we can't fix it (soon) ... :( Ah! Yikes! :/ I could use mock to build myself newer packages, though, right? Would you know what packages need to be rebuilt to fix this issue until the builder is back on? Perhaps a bug URL I can look at? -- Thanks again, Warm regards, Ankur (FranciscoD) http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Ankursinha Join Fedora! Come talk to us! http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_Join_SIG signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: Broken dependency: Requires: libavcodec.so.54(LIBAVCODEC_54)(64bit)
On Wed, 2013-09-18 at 10:53 +1000, Ankur Sinha wrote: Ah! Yikes! :/ Known issue: http://bugs.musicpd.org/view.php?id=3814#bugnotes I'll see if I can get it to build off git. -- Thanks, Warm regards, Ankur (FranciscoD) http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Ankursinha Join Fedora! Come talk to us! http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_Join_SIG signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: Opencv-nonfree in rpmfusion?
On Wed, 2013-05-15 at 16:55 +0200, Nicolas Chauvet wrote: Hi, Please note that despite the shared object is named opencv_nonfree.so, this library will belong to the RPM Fusion free section. We used to use the opencv-freeworld as the package name in this case. (instead of opencv-free). It's also possible to package the opencv_video.so, which last depends on a cuda compiler. It could be named opencv-nonfree as it will depends on proprietary software (the nvidia cuda compiler). Package review filed: https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2803 I'd be happy to swap reviews :) -- Thanks, Warm regards, Ankur: FranciscoD Please only print if necessary. Looking to contribute to Fedora? Look here: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_Join_SIG http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Ankursinha http://ankursinha.in/blog signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Opencv-nonfree in rpmfusion?
Hi folks, I recently realized that the opencv module in Fedora doesn't contain the nonfree parts, which are the SURF and SIFT feature detectors. I was wondering if it's OK to make them available via RPMFusion? Both SIFT and SURF are widely used feature detectors in vision research. Not having them around makes all these research folks move away from Fedora. I'd be happy to maintain the package, if required. I'd just like to have these available for use. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=884885 ^ Bug where removal of non free bits from fedora package is documented -- Thanks, Warm regards, Ankur: FranciscoD Please only print if necessary. Looking to contribute to Fedora? Look here: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_Join_SIG http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Ankursinha http://ankursinha.in/blog signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: Opencv-nonfree in rpmfusion?
Hi Hans, Alec, On Wed, 2013-05-08 at 11:23 +0200, Hans de Goede wrote: Note that we would prefer for opencv-nonfree to just contain a couple of plugins, or some such, and depend on the Fedora package. If that is not possible it is allowed to simply copy the Fedora package as base, add the nonfree bits and make it Conflict with the original, see for example audacity-nonfree I'll try making a package that only provides the non free bits. I'm already a fedora package maintainer. I'll get on it asap. -- Thanks, Warm regards, Ankur: FranciscoD Please only print if necessary. Looking to contribute to Fedora? Look here: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_Join_SIG http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Ankursinha http://ankursinha.in/blog signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: VLC: Dbus interface not available in preferences
On Sun, 2013-02-17 at 14:21 +0100, Nicolas Chauvet wrote: Patch is welcomed if you find something is missing. Thx From the looks of it, the interface setting's been removed completely[1] $ vlc --control dbus seems to work just fine. May be that's the intended usage. [1] http://mailman.videolan.org/pipermail/vlc-commits/2012-February/012483.html -- Thanks, Warm regards, Ankur: FranciscoD Please only print if necessary. Looking to contribute to Fedora? Look here: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_Join_SIG http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Ankursinha http://dodoincfedora.wordpress.com/ signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
VLC: Dbus interface not available in preferences
Hi folks, I found this post[1] that tells one how to enable the Dbus interface for vlc so that it can be controlled via MPRIS2. However, in the vlc that I installed from RPMFusion on F18, I can't find the option to enable this as the post describes. Here are the vlc packages I have installed. Am I missing a package, or is dbus support disabled? Should I file a bug? [ankur@dhcppc1 ~]$ rpm -qa | egrep vlc vlc-extras-2.0.5-1.fc18.x86_64 phonon-backend-vlc-0.6.2-1.fc18.x86_64 vlc-core-2.0.5-1.fc18.x86_64 vlc-2.0.5-1.fc18.x86_64 [1] http://www.webupd8.org/2012/02/how-to-add-vlc-to-ubuntu-sound-menu.html -- Thanks, Warm regards, Ankur: FranciscoD Please only print if necessary. Looking to contribute to Fedora? Look here: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_Join_SIG http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Ankursinha http://dodoincfedora.wordpress.com/ signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: VLC: Dbus interface not available in preferences
On Sun, 2013-02-17 at 14:21 +0100, Nicolas Chauvet wrote: Hi, From a quick look at config.log, it seems that this test fails: configure:45676: checking for MCE configure:45683: $PKG_CONFIG --exists --print-errors dbus-1 mce There is no pkgconfig/mce.pc in f17 at least, so this feature might rely on this also there is others dbus dependent modules in vlc. Patch is welcomed if you find something is missing. Hi Nicolas, This is what I find for mce.pc https://github.com/nemomobile/mce-dev (It looks like something to do with Meego, so may not be what we need for dbus) I'm not really sure if this is the package. I'll try and see what's going on and provide a patch if I can. -- Thanks, Warm regards, Ankur: FranciscoD Please only print if necessary. Looking to contribute to Fedora? Look here: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_Join_SIG http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Ankursinha http://dodoincfedora.wordpress.com/ signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: Packaging the Intersense Library
On Thu, 2012-07-26 at 20:35 -0500, Richard Shaw wrote: I didn't see the source anywhere. Unless they over the sources (and it's FOSS) then it's a non-starter... Yeah. That's what I thought too. I'll see if I can get the source code some place. If I can't, I'll set up a private repository I guess. Thanks Richard. -- Thanks, Warm regards, Ankur: FranciscoD Please only print if necessary. Looking to contribute to Fedora? Look here: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_Join_SIG http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Ankursinha http://dodoincfedora.wordpress.com/ signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Packaging the Intersense Library
Hi folks, I was wondering if it's worth packaging up the Intersense library[1] to make it available for Fedora? Intersense makes sensors and chips for motion tracking. I've recently started working with NavChip[2]. It's how I ran into the library. Navigation systems are an important research subject in Robotics. What do you folks think? Packaging it shouldn't be too complex. The README for linux says provided in the SDK says: Last updated 2010-04-13. General Information This folder contains 32-bit and 64-bit Linux libraries as well as a sample application. They were all compiled on Debian Etch, which uses glibc 2.3.6. As such, they are expected to work on most distributions shipped since 2005. If you encounter errors, please contact InterSense technical support and include the output of 'uname -a' as well as the name of your distribution. The x86 directory contains a 32-bit version of the library, and the x86_64 contains the 64-bit x86 version. The sample directory contains source code as well as pre-compiled 32 and 64-bit binaries (ismain32 and ismain64). Installation Copy the file corresponding to your architecture to the /lib directory (or any other directory named in /etc/ld.so.conf or specified in your LD_LIBRARY_PATH variable). The library needs to be named libisense.so or it will not be found, and it may be necessary to run the ldconfig program after copying the library into the library directory. If any problems are encountered, please contact InterSense technical support at techsupp...@intersense.com or call +1 781-541-7624 (or toll free 1-888-FLY-THRU, extension 624, in the United States). Example Application The ismain application is provided as an example application that can access an InterSense device and output position/orientation data for it. To compile it, simply run the command make from the Sample directory, and then ./ismain to run it. I've failed to find any licensing information though. Should I start by talking to legal? [1] http://www.intersense.com/pages/33/154/ [2] http://www.intersense.com/pages/16/16/ -- Thanks, Warm regards, Ankur: FranciscoD Please only print if necessary. Looking to contribute to Fedora? Look here: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_Join_SIG http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Ankursinha http://dodoincfedora.wordpress.com/
Fedora kmod nvidia howto
Hello, I've noticed that the steps around dracut usage have been removed from the Nvidia guide here[1]. Why is this? Are they not needed anymore? Quite a few folks have come into #fedora and have had their borked X fixed after running the dracut commands. Can these please be added back to the page for troubleshooting? If there are other commands required, can the page please be updated? [1]http://rpmfusion.org/Howto/nVidia -- Thanks a bunch, Regards, Ankur: FranciscoD http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Ankursinha http://dodoincfedora.wordpress.com/ signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: Newcomer
On Wed, 2011-10-19 at 10:35 +0200, Nicolas Viéville wrote: Hello Nicolas, snippy Hi Nicolas, I'm sorry I've been a little aloof these couple of days. I was going through wl-kmod last night when I came across this post. If you need any assistance with the spec etc, please feel free to ping me on the irc. I'm around on quite a few fedora channels and the rpmfusion channel. My irc is FranciscoD -- Thanks, Regards, Ankur: FranciscoD http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Ankursinha http://dodoincfedora.wordpress.com/ signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: RPM Fusion orphaned packages searching for a new owner
On Fri, 2011-09-23 at 13:47 +0100, Chris Nolan wrote: I can no longer maintain wl-kmod or broadcom-wl either. After 4 years of Fedora I am bored of having to upgrade every 13 months so I jumped ship to Arch. Any takers? Is there some process I need to go through to officially orphan these packages? Hello, I'll take them. -- Thanks, Regards, Ankur: FranciscoD http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Ankursinha http://dodoincfedora.wordpress.com/ signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
mpd for F16
Hello, I just updated to F16 beta. I've installed the rpmfusion repos but cannot find mpd in here. I can't find kmod-wl either. Could someone please shed light on when these will be availble? -- Thanks a bunch, Regards, Ankur: FranciscoD http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Ankursinha http://dodoincfedora.wordpress.com/
Co-maintain mpd
Hello, I'd like to co-maintain mpd. Adrian, the current maintainer has agreed to this. Can someone please point me to the procedure? PS: kwizart: I didn't exactly understand what you mentioned over the irc, apologies :) https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1954 -- Thanks, Regards, Ankur: FranciscoD http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Ankursinha http://dodoincfedora.wordpress.com/
Re: mpd for F16
On Tue, 2011-10-11 at 23:06 +0200, Nicolas Chauvet wrote: 2011/10/11 Ankur Sinha sanjay.an...@gmail.com: Hello, I just updated to F16 beta. I've installed the rpmfusion repos but cannot find mpd in here. I can't find kmod-wl either. Could someone please shed light on when these will be availble? Hi, As said on IRC, you can set an ACL request on an existing bug such as: https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1954 http://rpmfusion.org/Contributors/CVSRequests As in the mpd case, the primary maintainer specially has requested some help. Please verify for existing bugs with the mdp component. The same for broadcom-wl and wl-kmod , they have been orphaned by the previous primary maintainer, so you can take over the maintenance of the driver. Thx Nicolas (kwizart) Hi Nicolas, I've updated the bug for mpd. I haven't taken over the wireless drivers yet, basically because I'm not going to have the time to maintain such an important package in the near future (and I don't have a clue about kmods). I'll wait a while and hope someone steps up, otherwise we'll see.. -- Thanks, Regards, Ankur: FranciscoD http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Ankursinha http://dodoincfedora.wordpress.com/
