Re: Anyone have access to a PPC64LE-based system?

[Antonio Trande]

If you're a Fedora packager, you can use these test machines by ssh:

https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Test_Machine_Resources_For_Package_Maintainers

On 15/02/20 20:42, FeRD wrote:
> When building on ppc64le (see e.g. this scratch build[1]), libopenshot's
> unit tests fail spectacularly. Various other build issues have been
> consistently cropping up on that architecture, all dutifully kludged around.
> 
> At this point, I'm far from convinced that the *library* is even
> remotely usable on that platform — I suspect it may be as broken as its
> failing tests indicate.
> 
> So, I'm wondering if I'm wasting my time (and quite a bit of leigh's,
> too) with all of this special-casing and tweaking just trying to make
> the ppc64le builds happy — if the resulting library is ultimately
> unusable, then it's silly to keep doing all that, and I should just
> ExcludeArch it from the build. 
> 
> Problem is, I have no way of knowing!
> 
> Does anyone have, or have access to, ppc64le-based Fedora hardware that
> they could install and test OpenShot on, to see if it even /*works*/?
> 
> Or, if you have a non-GUI host, I can scare up a libopenshot
> command-line demo executable. (They're normally not packaged, for being
> pretty useless.) One just loads a demo video from the library's assets
> dir and transcodes it to another format. That would probably be enough
> to show whether the library's doing the right things after all, or if
> it's horribly mangling everything that passes through it.
> 
> [1]: http://koji.rpmfusion.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=386626
> 
> ___
> rpmfusion-developers mailing list -- rpmfusion-developers@lists.rpmfusion.org
> To unsubscribe send an email to rpmfusion-developers-le...@lists.rpmfusion.org
> 

-- 
---
Antonio Trande
Fedora Project
mailto 'sagitter at fedoraproject dot org'
GPG key: 0x7B30EE04E576AA84
GPG key server: https://keys.openpgp.org/



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
___
rpmfusion-developers mailing list -- rpmfusion-developers@lists.rpmfusion.org
To unsubscribe send an email to rpmfusion-developers-le...@lists.rpmfusion.org

Re: [Bug 5477] New: Review request: videomorph - Small GUI wrapper for FFMPEG based on PyQt5

[Antonio Trande]

Is it a private ticket?

On 01/12/19 14:56, RPM Fusion Bugzilla wrote:
> Bug ID5477 <https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=5477>
> Summary   Review request: videomorph - Small GUI wrapper for FFMPEG based
> on PyQt5
> Product   Package Reviews
> Version   Current
> Hardware  x86_64
> OSGNU/Linux
> StatusNEW
> Severity  enhancement
> Priority  P1
> Component Review Request
> Assignee  rpmfusion-package-rev...@rpmfusion.org
> Reporter  leigh123li...@gmail.com
> CCrpmfusion-package-rev...@rpmfusion.org
> Group Package Reviews
> namespace free
> 
> SPEC:
> https://leigh123linux.fedorapeople.org/pub/review/videomorph/videomorph.spec
> SRPM:
> https://leigh123linux.fedorapeople.org/pub/review/videomorph/videomorph-1.4.1-1.fc32.src.rpm
> 
> Description:
> VideoMorph is a video converter based on ffmpeg, and written with Python 3, 
> and PyQt5. With VideoMorph you can convert your favorite videos to the 
> currently more popular video formats, like MPG, MP4, AVI, WEBM, DVD, VCD, 
> FLV, MOV, OGV, and also extract the audio to a file with MP3 format.
> 
> FAS: leigh123linux
> 
> 
> You are receiving this mail because:
> 
>   * You are on the CC list for the bug.
>   * You are the assignee for the bug.
> 
> 
> ___
> rpmfusion-developers mailing list -- rpmfusion-developers@lists.rpmfusion.org
> To unsubscribe send an email to rpmfusion-developers-le...@lists.rpmfusion.org
> 

-- 
---
Antonio Trande
Fedora Project
mailto 'sagitter at fedoraproject dot org'
GPG key: 0x7B30EE04E576AA84
GPG key server: https://keys.openpgp.org/



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
___
rpmfusion-developers mailing list -- rpmfusion-developers@lists.rpmfusion.org
To unsubscribe send an email to rpmfusion-developers-le...@lists.rpmfusion.org

python2-scons on Fedora 32

[Antonio Trande]

Hi all.

The `mixxx` package needs an update for using python3-scons on Rawhide
branch.

-- 
---
Antonio Trande
Fedora Project
mailto 'sagitter at fedoraproject dot org'
GPG key: 0x7B30EE04E576AA84
GPG key server: https://keys.openpgp.org/



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
___
rpmfusion-developers mailing list -- rpmfusion-developers@lists.rpmfusion.org
To unsubscribe send an email to rpmfusion-developers-le...@lists.rpmfusion.org

Re: gnustep-base 1.26.0

[Antonio Trande]

Yes, sorry. I mixed up `unar` with `unrar`.

On 25/08/19 21:43, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> Antonio Trande wrote:
>> 'gnustep-base' 1.26.0 will be pushed on Fedora Rawhide in 10 days.
>>
>> Package involved: unrar
> 
> Nope. As was already pointed out on the Fedora devel mailing list, there is 
> a confusion here: unrar is in RPM Fusion and does not use gnustep-base. 
> unar, the Unarchiver, which has reverse engineered RAR uncompression support 
> as its main feature, is in Fedora and uses gnustep-base. (It was originally 
> developed for macOS and ported to GNUstep.)
> 
> Kevin Kofler
> ___
> rpmfusion-developers mailing list -- rpmfusion-developers@lists.rpmfusion.org
> To unsubscribe send an email to rpmfusion-developers-le...@lists.rpmfusion.org
> 

-- 
---
Antonio Trande
Fedora Project
mailto 'sagitter at fedoraproject dot org'
GPG key: 0x6e0331dd1699e4d7
GPG key server: https://keys.openpgp.org/



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
___
rpmfusion-developers mailing list -- rpmfusion-developers@lists.rpmfusion.org
To unsubscribe send an email to rpmfusion-developers-le...@lists.rpmfusion.org

gnustep-base 1.26.0

[Antonio Trande]

Hi all.

'gnustep-base' 1.26.0 will be pushed on Fedora Rawhide in 10 days.

Package involved: unrar

Scratch build:
https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=37267892

-- 
---
Antonio Trande
Fedora Project
mailto 'sagitter at fedoraproject dot org'
GPG key: 0x6e0331dd1699e4d7
GPG key server: https://keys.openpgp.org/



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
___
rpmfusion-developers mailing list -- rpmfusion-developers@lists.rpmfusion.org
To unsubscribe send an email to rpmfusion-developers-le...@lists.rpmfusion.org

MythTV with Python3

[Antonio Trande]

Hi all.

I'm testing MythTV with Python3 binding (also we need to know if works
with Python3).

Build log:
http://koji.rpmfusion.org/koji/getfile?taskID=347235=DEFAULT=build.log

TMDB3 Database bundled inside looks Python3 incompatible; we could
unbundle it and use 'python3-tmdb3' [1].

What's your opinion?

[1] https://github.com/opacam/python3-tmdb3

-- 
---
Antonio Trande
Fedora Project
mailto 'sagitter at fedoraproject dot org'
GPG key: 0x6e0331dd1699e4d7
GPG key server: https://keys.openpgp.org/



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
___
rpmfusion-developers mailing list -- rpmfusion-developers@lists.rpmfusion.org
To unsubscribe send an email to rpmfusion-developers-le...@lists.rpmfusion.org

Re: [mythtv] Fix Python binding conditional macro

[Antonio Trande]

I faced these changes too much superficially, i guess.
I'll need more time.

On Mon, Aug 12, 2019 at 2:54 AM Sérgio Basto  wrote:

> On Sun, 2019-08-11 at 20:40 +0200, Antonio wrote:
> > commit f25cca2deb50bed76036c5b5dc7be9d1de0c2829
> > Author: sagitter 
> > Date:   Sun Aug 11 20:40:01 2019 +0200
> >
> > Fix Python binding conditional macro
> >
> >  mythtv.spec | 2 +-
> >  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> > ---
> > diff --git a/mythtv.spec b/mythtv.spec
> > index 4138e92..747401a 100644
> > --- a/mythtv.spec
> > +++ b/mythtv.spec
> > @@ -963,7 +963,7 @@ pushd mythtv
> >  %if !%{with php}
> >  --without-bindings=php  \
> >  %endif
> > -%if !%{with python}
> > +%if %{without python}
>
> Please read /lib/rpm/macros [1] "without" doesn't exist , but also
> maybe !% is wrong, we may need a space to separate ! and % (%if !
> %{with python} )
>
>
> [1]
> #
> # For example (spec file):
> #
> # (at the beginning)
> # %bcond_with extra_fonts
> # %bcond_without static
> # (and later)
> # %if %{with extra_fonts}
> # ...
> # %else
> # ...
> # %endif
> # %if ! %{with static}
> # ...
> # %endif
> # %if %{with static}
> # ...
> # %endif
> # %{?with_static: ... }
> # %{!?with_static: ... }
> # %{?with_extra_fonts: ... }
> # %{!?with_extra_fonts: ... }
>
>
>
>
>
>
> --
> Sérgio M. B.
> ___
> rpmfusion-developers mailing list --
> rpmfusion-developers@lists.rpmfusion.org
> To unsubscribe send an email to
> rpmfusion-developers-le...@lists.rpmfusion.org
>


-- 

*--Antonio Trande*

*mail*: mailto:sagit...@fedoraproject.org 
___
rpmfusion-developers mailing list -- rpmfusion-developers@lists.rpmfusion.org
To unsubscribe send an email to rpmfusion-developers-le...@lists.rpmfusion.org

Re: [typos fixed] Re: Scratch builds never work

[Antonio Trande]

Hi Sérgio.

I was referring to scratch builds launched by 'koji-rpmfusion' command.

On Wed, Aug 7, 2019 at 12:03 AM Sérgio Basto  wrote:

> BTW , you may use `rfpkg scratch-build` on your package directory [1] it 
> worked
> for me ...
>
> [1]
> rfpkg --release f30 scratch-build --srpm
> rfpkg scratch-build --srpm
>
>
>
> On Sat, 2019-08-03 at 20:30 +0100, Sérgio Basto wrote:
>
> On Sat, 2019-08-03 at 14:11 -0400, FeRD wrote:
>
> On Sat, Aug 3, 2019 at 12:51 PM Antonio Trande 
> wrote:
>
> Hi all.
>
> Since some days i can't do scratch build both on f30-free and rawhide-free:
>
>
> http://koji.rpmfusion.org/koji/getfile?taskID=340985=DEFAULT=root.log=-4000
>
>
> Well, that URL it failed on genuinely does not exist, because
> libselinux-2.9-4.fc31.x86_64.rpm has since taken its place. Sounds like the
> repo metadata is out of date.
>
>
> In this case we may ask over IRC a koji regen repo
>
>
>
> I know dnf says its last expiration check was just 51 seconds earlier, but
> maybe it should always be run with --refresh, to hopefully guard against
> out-of-sync issues like this? Or is it the repo metadata on the other end
> that's out of sync?
>
> ___
>
> rpmfusion-developers mailing list --
>
> rpmfusion-developers@lists.rpmfusion.org
>
>
> To unsubscribe send an email to
>
> rpmfusion-developers-le...@lists.rpmfusion.org
>
>
> --
>
>
> Sérgio M. B.
>
> --
>
> Sérgio M. B.
>
> ___
> rpmfusion-developers mailing list --
> rpmfusion-developers@lists.rpmfusion.org
> To unsubscribe send an email to
> rpmfusion-developers-le...@lists.rpmfusion.org
>


-- 

*--Antonio Trande*

*mail*: mailto:sagit...@fedoraproject.org 
___
rpmfusion-developers mailing list -- rpmfusion-developers@lists.rpmfusion.org
To unsubscribe send an email to rpmfusion-developers-le...@lists.rpmfusion.org

Scratch builds never work

[Antonio Trande]

Hi all.

Since some days i can't do scratch build both on f30-free and rawhide-free:

http://koji.rpmfusion.org/koji/getfile?taskID=340985=DEFAULT=root.log=-4000

-- 
---
Antonio Trande
Fedora Project
mailto 'sagitter at fedoraproject dot org'
GPG key: 0x6e0331dd1699e4d7
GPG key server: https://keys.openpgp.org/



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
___
rpmfusion-developers mailing list -- rpmfusion-developers@lists.rpmfusion.org
To unsubscribe send an email to rpmfusion-developers-le...@lists.rpmfusion.org

Re: LiVES-3.0.0

[Antonio Trande]

On 29/07/19 14:05, Nicolas Chauvet wrote:
> Le lun. 29 juil. 2019 à 13:10, Nicolas Chauvet  a écrit :
>>
>> Le lun. 29 juil. 2019 à 12:34, Antonio Trande  a 
>> écrit :
>>>
>>> Cinnamon is a fork of Gnome...
>>> It happens on Gnome too.
>>>
>>> On 29/07/19 11:46, Leigh Scott wrote:
>>>> It's seem totally broken on cinnamon, it doesn't start up in the correct 
>>>> position and window tiling is broken.
>>
>> Can you have an environment where this is working fine for you ? What
>> makes you think the condition is about Gnome ?
> 
> Btw, Is there a way for lives to finally uses SDL2 instead of SDL ?

Maybe, i'll try.

> 
> There is also something (libprojectM) that bring qt4 by default ! I
> think I've dropped support for this in vlc because of this reason (and
> to avoid the clash of using qt5 application with a library using qt4).
> Please consider to drop projectM unless it's mandatory. I don't think
> this project is very well maintained.
> 
> 

Recompiled without projectM and latest code commit...
http://koji.rpmfusion.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=340185

-- 
---
Antonio Trande
Fedora Project
mailto 'sagitter at fedoraproject dot org'
GPG key: 0x6e0331dd1699e4d7
GPG key server: https://keys.openpgp.org/



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
___
rpmfusion-developers mailing list -- rpmfusion-developers@lists.rpmfusion.org
To unsubscribe send an email to rpmfusion-developers-le...@lists.rpmfusion.org

Re: LiVES-3.0.0

[Antonio Trande]

Cinnamon is a fork of Gnome...
It happens on Gnome too.

On 29/07/19 11:46, Leigh Scott wrote:
> It's seem totally broken on cinnamon, it doesn't start up in the correct 
> position and window tiling is broken.
> ___
> rpmfusion-developers mailing list -- rpmfusion-developers@lists.rpmfusion.org
> To unsubscribe send an email to rpmfusion-developers-le...@lists.rpmfusion.org
> 

-- 
---
Antonio Trande
Fedora Project
mailto 'sagitter at fedoraproject dot org'
GPG key: 0x6e0331dd1699e4d7
GPG key server: https://keys.openpgp.org/



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
___
rpmfusion-developers mailing list -- rpmfusion-developers@lists.rpmfusion.org
To unsubscribe send an email to rpmfusion-developers-le...@lists.rpmfusion.org

LiVES-3.0.0

[Antonio Trande]

Hi all.

Could anyone test LiVES-3.0.0-pre1 on a non-Gnome system, please?
http://koji.rpmfusion.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=339659

Especially, if main window is correctly expanded/repositioned/resized.

Thanks.
-- 
---
Antonio Trande
Fedora Project
mailto 'sagitter at fedoraproject dot org'
GPG key: 0x6e0331dd1699e4d7
GPG key server: https://keys.openpgp.org/



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
___
rpmfusion-developers mailing list -- rpmfusion-developers@lists.rpmfusion.org
To unsubscribe send an email to rpmfusion-developers-le...@lists.rpmfusion.org

Re: rfpkgdb-cli and rfpkg

[Antonio Trande]

On 26/03/19 18:50, Nicolas Chauvet wrote:
> Le mar. 26 mars 2019 à 18:33, Antonio Trande  a écrit :
>>
>> On 26/03/19 18:18, Sérgio Basto wrote:> On Tue, 2019-03-26 at 10:42
>> +0100, Nicolas Chauvet wrote:
>>>> Le mar. 19 mars 2019 à 19:02, Sérgio Basto  a
>>>> écrit :
>>>>>
>>>>> On Tue, 2019-03-19 at 09:27 +0100, Nicolas Chauvet wrote:
>>>>>> Le lun. 18 mars 2019 à 17:19, Sérgio Basto  a
>>>>>> écrit :
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Fri, 2019-03-08 at 11:34 -0500, Gergely Gombos wrote:
>>>>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> For this:https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=5115
>>>>>>>> (cinelerra) I tried to run fedora-review ... how can I enable
>>>>>>>> RPMFusion
>>>>>>>> in mock config? I haven't found any instructions in the wiki.
>>>>
>>>> Still one week after and none has fixed our rfpkg tools to work with
>>>> python3 only with f30+
>>>
>>> I moved rpmfusion-packager-setup to python3, now should be just swap
>>> pyhton2 to python3 in rfpkg like fedpkg
>>>
>>
>>
>> I'm preparing 'rfpkg' for Python3 on fedora 30+ and rhel 8+, but it
>> needs to be modified for using the new 'rfpkgdb-cli'
>> (http://koji.rpmfusion.org/koji/rpminfo?rpmID=424179) on fedora 30+
>> before (unfortunately, i cannot be useful to you for this).
> 
> Leigh already went ahead and did the review, so It's already in f30.
> 
> 

'rfpkg' still needs 'packagedb-cli' to work.

-- 
---
Antonio Trande
Fedora Project
mailto 'sagitter at fedoraproject dot org'
GPG key: 0x6e0331dd1699e4d7
GPG key server: https://keys.fedoraproject.org/



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
___
rpmfusion-developers mailing list -- rpmfusion-developers@lists.rpmfusion.org
To unsubscribe send an email to rpmfusion-developers-le...@lists.rpmfusion.org

Re: rfpkgdb-cli and rfpkg

[Antonio Trande]

On 26/03/19 18:18, Sérgio Basto wrote:> On Tue, 2019-03-26 at 10:42
+0100, Nicolas Chauvet wrote:
>> Le mar. 19 mars 2019 à 19:02, Sérgio Basto  a
>> écrit :
>>>
>>> On Tue, 2019-03-19 at 09:27 +0100, Nicolas Chauvet wrote:
>>>> Le lun. 18 mars 2019 à 17:19, Sérgio Basto  a
>>>> écrit :
>>>>>
>>>>> On Fri, 2019-03-08 at 11:34 -0500, Gergely Gombos wrote:
>>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> For this:https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=5115
>>>>>> (cinelerra) I tried to run fedora-review ... how can I enable
>>>>>> RPMFusion
>>>>>> in mock config? I haven't found any instructions in the wiki.
>>
>> Still one week after and none has fixed our rfpkg tools to work with
>> python3 only with f30+
>
> I moved rpmfusion-packager-setup to python3, now should be just swap
> pyhton2 to python3 in rfpkg like fedpkg
>


I'm preparing 'rfpkg' for Python3 on fedora 30+ and rhel 8+, but it
needs to be modified for using the new 'rfpkgdb-cli'
(http://koji.rpmfusion.org/koji/rpminfo?rpmID=424179) on fedora 30+
before (unfortunately, i cannot be useful to you for this).


-- 
---
Antonio Trande
Fedora Project
mailto 'sagitter at fedoraproject dot org'
GPG key: 0x6e0331dd1699e4d7
GPG key server: https://keys.fedoraproject.org/



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
___
rpmfusion-developers mailing list -- rpmfusion-developers@lists.rpmfusion.org
To unsubscribe send an email to rpmfusion-developers-le...@lists.rpmfusion.org

rfpkgdb-cli and rfpkg

[Antonio Trande]

Hi all.

Is anyone already working on 'rfpkgdb-cli' packaging?
It looks like required by 'rfpkg' and, therefore, it needs work for
using 'rfpkgdb-cli'

-- 
---
Antonio Trande
Fedora Project
mailto 'sagitter at fedoraproject dot org'
GPG key: 0x6e0331dd1699e4d7
GPG key server: https://keys.fedoraproject.org/



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
___
rpmfusion-developers mailing list -- rpmfusion-developers@lists.rpmfusion.org
To unsubscribe send an email to rpmfusion-developers-le...@lists.rpmfusion.org

Re: Doing reviews for RPMFusion

[Antonio Trande]

Let me check.

On 26/03/19 10:42, Nicolas Chauvet wrote:
> Le mar. 19 mars 2019 à 19:02, Sérgio Basto  a écrit :
>>
>> On Tue, 2019-03-19 at 09:27 +0100, Nicolas Chauvet wrote:
>>> Le lun. 18 mars 2019 à 17:19, Sérgio Basto  a
>>> écrit :
>>>>
>>>> On Fri, 2019-03-08 at 11:34 -0500, Gergely Gombos wrote:
>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>
>>>>> For this:https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=5115
>>>>> (cinelerra) I tried to run fedora-review ... how can I enable
>>>>> RPMFusion
>>>>> in mock config? I haven't found any instructions in the wiki.
> 
> Still one week after and none has fixed our rfpkg tools to work with
> python3 only with f30+
> Seems some might need to revisit their priority instead of breaking
> libprojectm for all release (unannounced ABI break)
> 
> This is a community project, so I cannot brame one in particular. But
> I re-interate that RPM Fusion is a community project, and at this time
> I'm holding too much load by myself for no reason.
> If this trivial fix cannot be sorted out by someone else I will
> consider to shutdown my involvment with the project.
> 
> Hope someone will volunteer.
> 
> 
> 

-- 
---
Antonio Trande
Fedora Project
mailto 'sagitter at fedoraproject dot org'
GPG key: 0x6e0331dd1699e4d7
GPG key server: https://keys.fedoraproject.org/



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
___
rpmfusion-developers mailing list -- rpmfusion-developers@lists.rpmfusion.org
To unsubscribe send an email to rpmfusion-developers-le...@lists.rpmfusion.org

Re: lives-2.10.1-1.fc29 successfully moved from f29-free-updates-testing into f29-free-updates by kwizart

[Antonio Trande]

The release 2.10.1-1 is bugged.
Please, push on testing the 2.10.1-2 one as soon as possible.

On 30/12/18 17:24, RPM Fusion Koji Build System wrote:
> Package: lives
> NVR: lives-2.10.1-1.fc29
> User: kwizart
> Status: complete
> Tag Operation: moved
> From Tag: f29-free-updates-testing
> Into Tag: f29-free-updates
> 
> lives-2.10.1-1.fc29 successfully moved from f29-free-updates-testing into 
> f29-free-updates by kwizart
> 

-- 
---
Antonio Trande
Fedora Project
mailto 'sagitter at fedoraproject dot org'
GPG key: 0x6e0331dd1699e4d7
GPG key server: https://keys.fedoraproject.org/



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
___
rpmfusion-developers mailing list -- rpmfusion-developers@lists.rpmfusion.org
To unsubscribe send an email to rpmfusion-developers-le...@lists.rpmfusion.org

Re: [el7] Upgrading with newer ffmpeg/x264/x265

[Antonio Trande]

On 09/12/18 03:42, Sérgio Basto wrote:
> On Sat, 2018-12-08 at 23:20 +0100, Antonio Trande wrote:
>> All packages should be okay on el7 except 'transcode' (dead upstream)
>> and 'tvheadend' for missing dependencies.
> 
> Hi,
> 
> Many tanks for your work, I know it was very hard , mass rebuilds like
> this consume us many time and needs a big effort .
> 
> transcode as retired from Fedora since F28 [1] 
> 
> You know I'm don't write English very well , so I will write some
> things that can be improved and I hope you don't be upset. 
> 
> IMHO, improve and rewrite some packages wasn't good idea but fixing
> build is good, although they are welcomed but IMHO should be done in
> another phase. 

If you refer to the python2--> python3 changes in 'mythtv', they are
forced because many python2 packages are no more available on Fedora 30+.

Regarding all changes of others packages, most of them are just
renovations more or less important.

> 
> Mythtv still not ready for python3 [2] but shouldn't be a problem build
> on el7 ... . You removed helper script update_fixes.sh and patch
> v29.1..9f0acf372d.patch was in sources file and was handle with rfpkg
> new-sources v29.1..9f0acf372d.patch , I will revert this two minor
> things when I got time . 
> 
> Congratulations , good work 
> 
> Best regards
> 
> 
> [1]
> https://pkgs.rpmfusion.org/cgit/free/transcode.git/commit/?id=a2130954a
> 2f91382c76530920912d93e7c5834f0
> 
> [2]
> https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=5078
> 

-- 
---
Antonio Trande
Fedora Project
mailto 'sagitter at fedoraproject dot org'
GPG key: 0x6e0331dd1699e4d7
GPG key server: https://keys.fedoraproject.org/



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
___
rpmfusion-developers mailing list -- rpmfusion-developers@lists.rpmfusion.org
To unsubscribe send an email to rpmfusion-developers-le...@lists.rpmfusion.org

[el7] Upgrading with newer ffmpeg/x264/x265

[Antonio Trande]

All packages should be okay on el7 except 'transcode' (dead upstream)
and 'tvheadend' for missing dependencies.

-- 
---
Antonio Trande
Fedora Project
mailto 'sagitter at fedoraproject dot org'
GPG key: 0x6e0331dd1699e4d7
GPG key server: https://keys.fedoraproject.org/



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
___
rpmfusion-developers mailing list -- rpmfusion-developers@lists.rpmfusion.org
To unsubscribe send an email to rpmfusion-developers-le...@lists.rpmfusion.org

Re: mythtv rebuilds

[Antonio Trande]

Anyway, mythtv is ready for el7.
I will push it on rawhide without build.

On 08/12/18 20:15, Richard Shaw wrote:
> On Sat, Dec 8, 2018 at 1:10 PM Antonio Trande  <mailto:anto.tra...@gmail.com>> wrote:
> 
> Hi all.
> 
> 'mythtv' is the last rpm that i'm rebuilding for el7.
> 
> On rawhide only we can't build it yet for missing python3 packages from
> Fedora (python3-oauth, python3-urlgrabber); we have two choices:
> 
> - Disable python on mythtv on fedora 30+ and build it
> - Contact the maintainers of oauth/urlgrabber to get these Python3
> packages
> 
> 
> MythTV upstream is not ready for python 3. For any python packages that
> have moved from python 2 to 3 we need to contact the maintainer and see
> if we can get them to provide both for now.
> 
> Thanks,
> Richard
> 
> ___
> rpmfusion-developers mailing list -- rpmfusion-developers@lists.rpmfusion.org
> To unsubscribe send an email to rpmfusion-developers-le...@lists.rpmfusion.org
> 

-- 
---
Antonio Trande
Fedora Project
mailto 'sagitter at fedoraproject dot org'
GPG key: 0x6e0331dd1699e4d7
GPG key server: https://keys.fedoraproject.org/



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
___
rpmfusion-developers mailing list -- rpmfusion-developers@lists.rpmfusion.org
To unsubscribe send an email to rpmfusion-developers-le...@lists.rpmfusion.org

mythtv rebuilds

[Antonio Trande]

Hi all.

'mythtv' is the last rpm that i'm rebuilding for el7.

On rawhide only we can't build it yet for missing python3 packages from
Fedora (python3-oauth, python3-urlgrabber); we have two choices:

- Disable python on mythtv on fedora 30+ and build it
- Contact the maintainers of oauth/urlgrabber to get these Python3 packages

-- 
---
Antonio Trande
Fedora Project
mailto 'sagitter at fedoraproject dot org'
GPG key: 0x6e0331dd1699e4d7
GPG key server: https://keys.fedoraproject.org/



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
___
rpmfusion-developers mailing list -- rpmfusion-developers@lists.rpmfusion.org
To unsubscribe send an email to rpmfusion-developers-le...@lists.rpmfusion.org

Re: New ZoneMinder packages - except el7

[Antonio Trande]

You can test this new release with a scratch build inside buildroot by
executing the command:

$ koji-rpmfusion wait-repo el7-free-build
--build=x264-0.148-23.20170521gitaaa9aa8.el7

On 08/12/18 17:27, Andrew Bauer wrote:
> FYI, new ZoneMinder packages representing the 1.32.3 release are building now 
> for Fedora
> branches.
> I will push a new package for el7 branch after Antonio completes his work 
> with new ffmpeg
> & x264.
> ___
> rpmfusion-developers mailing list -- rpmfusion-developers@lists.rpmfusion.org
> To unsubscribe send an email to rpmfusion-developers-le...@lists.rpmfusion.org
> 

-- 
---
Antonio Trande
Fedora Project
mailto 'sagitter at fedoraproject dot org'
GPG key: 0x6e0331dd1699e4d7
GPG key server: https://keys.fedoraproject.org/



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
___
rpmfusion-developers mailing list -- rpmfusion-developers@lists.rpmfusion.org
To unsubscribe send an email to rpmfusion-developers-le...@lists.rpmfusion.org

Re: [el7] Upgrading with newer ffmpeg/x264/x265

[Antonio Trande]

Hi.

There is an internet line breakdown here in these days (Southern Italy
looks became a "land of tornado" in last years).
Please, be patient.


-- 
---
Antonio Trande
Fedora Project
mailto 'sagitter at fedoraproject dot org'
GPG key: 0x6e0331dd1699e4d7
GPG key server: https://keys.fedoraproject.org/



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
___
rpmfusion-developers mailing list -- rpmfusion-developers@lists.rpmfusion.org
To unsubscribe send an email to rpmfusion-developers-le...@lists.rpmfusion.org

Re: [el7] gpac-devel-static

[Antonio Trande]

x264-0.148 requires it.

On 25/11/18 15:30, Leigh Scott wrote:
> If there are no packages in rpmfusion that require the static lib we
> should remove it IMO.
> 

-- 
---
Antonio Trande
Fedora Project
mailto 'sagitter at fedoraproject dot org'
GPG key: 0x6e0331dd1699e4d7
GPG key server: https://keys.fedoraproject.org/



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
___
rpmfusion-developers mailing list -- rpmfusion-developers@lists.rpmfusion.org
To unsubscribe send an email to rpmfusion-developers-le...@lists.rpmfusion.org

Re: [el7] gpac-devel-static

[Antonio Trande]

I need to know if you agree with this propose.

On 22/11/18 19:41, Antonio Trande wrote:
> Hi.
> 
> About gpac, i see a 'gpac-devel-static' sub-package created that, as you
> know, is a naming method not permitted for Fedora guidelines [1][2].
> There are two choices in these cases in my opinion:
> 
> 1 - Rename 'gpac-devel-static' as 'gpac-static'
> 2 - Include static file into gpac-devel since there is not many
> difference of
> disk usage (gpac-devel include static file) and add a Provides tag
> 
> $ du -bc --block-size M /usr/lib64/libgpac_static.a
> 9M    /usr/lib64/libgpac_static.a
> 9M    total
> 
> $ yum info gpac-devel | grep Size
> Size    : 10 M
> 
> [1]
> https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#packaging-static-libraries
> [2] https://rpmfusion.org/Contributors#Read_the_packaging_guidelines
> 
> -- 
> *--
> Antonio Trande//*
> *
> **mail*: mailto:sagit...@fedoraproject.org *
> *

-- 
---
Antonio Trande
Fedora Project
mailto 'sagitter at fedoraproject dot org'
GPG key: 0x6e0331dd1699e4d7
GPG key server: https://keys.fedoraproject.org/



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
___
rpmfusion-developers mailing list -- rpmfusion-developers@lists.rpmfusion.org
To unsubscribe send an email to rpmfusion-developers-le...@lists.rpmfusion.org

Re: [el7] Upgrading with newer ffmpeg/x264/x265

[Antonio Trande]

On 24/11/18 20:00, Sérgio Basto wrote:
>> How to manage this operation?
>> Shall i push them on rpmfusion-el7 branch only?
> 
> 
> Hi !,
> If we can merge with ff (fast-forward ) from some branch is the best ,
> if we can merge with ff (fast-forward ) (from some branch or master) and
> apply a minor is my 2nd choice .
> Else yes push them on rpmfusion-el7 branch only.
> 
> 

Can you explain what you mean with "ff (fast-forward )" please?

-- 
---
Antonio Trande
Fedora Project
mailto 'sagitter at fedoraproject dot org'
GPG key: 0x6e0331dd1699e4d7
GPG key server: https://keys.fedoraproject.org/



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
___
rpmfusion-developers mailing list -- rpmfusion-developers@lists.rpmfusion.org
To unsubscribe send an email to rpmfusion-developers-le...@lists.rpmfusion.org

[el7] Upgrading with newer ffmpeg/x264/x265

[Antonio Trande]

Hello everyone.

All packages are ready for upgrading el7:

x264-0.148-23.20170521gitaaa9aa8_bootstrap.el7.src.rpm
x264-0.148-23.20170521gitaaa9aa8.el7.src.rpm
x265-2.9-2.el7.src.rpm
ffmpeg-3.4.5-1.el7.src.rpm
audacity-freeworld-2.0.6-2.el7.src.rpm
avidemux-2.7.1-7.el7.src.rpm
ffms2-2.23-11.el7.src.rpm
gpac-0.7.1-7.el7.src.rpm
gstreamer1-plugins-bad-freeworld-1.10.4-2.el7.src.rpm
gstreamer1-plugins-ugly-1.10.5-1.el7.src.rpm
gstreamer-plugins-ugly-0.10.19-30.el7.src.rpm
libopenshot-0.2.2-2.el7.src.rpm
libquicktime-1.2.4-35.112.20180804gitfff99cd.el7.src.rpm
mjpegtools-2.1.0-14.el7.src.rpm
mlt-freeworld-6.4.1-2.el7.src.rpm
motion-4.1.1-6.el7.src.rpm
mpd-0.19.21-2.el7.src.rpm
mplayer-1.3.0-27.20180620svn.el7.src.rpm
mpv-0.27.2-1.el7.src.rpm
mythtv-29.1-27.39.20181004git74fff5c285.el7.src.rpm
qmmp-plugins-freeworld-0.8.8-2.el7.src.rpm
simplescreenrecorder-0.3.11-4.el7.src.rpm
transcode-1.1.7-23.el7.src.rpm
vlc-3.0.5-6.el7.src.rpm
xine-lib-1.2.9-11.el7.src.rpm
zoneminder-1.32.2-2.el7.src.rpm

How to manage this operation?
Shall i push them on rpmfusion-el7 branch only?

-- 

*--Antonio Trande*

*mail*: mailto:sagit...@fedoraproject.org 
___
rpmfusion-developers mailing list -- rpmfusion-developers@lists.rpmfusion.org
To unsubscribe send an email to rpmfusion-developers-le...@lists.rpmfusion.org

Re: [el7] mpd-1:0.20.22 dependencies

[Antonio Trande]

'mpd-1:0.20.22' looks incompatible with boost-1.53 on el7.
I'm forced to keep current release (0.19.21)

On Fri, Nov 23, 2018 at 10:30 PM Antonio Trande 
wrote:

> Hi all.
>
> 'mpd-1:0.20.22' can be built on el7 if missing dependencies are rebuilt
> from Fedora [1][2].
> I've just built both 'adplug' and 'libmpdclient' on el7. Any dissent about
> this upgrade?
>
> [1] https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/libmpdclient
> [2] https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/adplug
>
> --
>
> *--Antonio Trande*
>
> *mail*: mailto:sagit...@fedoraproject.org 
>


-- 

*--Antonio Trande*

*mail*: mailto:sagit...@fedoraproject.org 
___
rpmfusion-developers mailing list -- rpmfusion-developers@lists.rpmfusion.org
To unsubscribe send an email to rpmfusion-developers-le...@lists.rpmfusion.org

[el7] mpd-1:0.20.22 dependencies

[Antonio Trande]

Hi all.

'mpd-1:0.20.22' can be built on el7 if missing dependencies are rebuilt
from Fedora [1][2].
I've just built both 'adplug' and 'libmpdclient' on el7. Any dissent about
this upgrade?

[1] https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/libmpdclient
[2] https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/adplug

-- 

*--Antonio Trande*

*mail*: mailto:sagit...@fedoraproject.org 
___
rpmfusion-developers mailing list -- rpmfusion-developers@lists.rpmfusion.org
To unsubscribe send an email to rpmfusion-developers-le...@lists.rpmfusion.org

Re: [el7] ffmpeg-3.3 vs ffmpeg-3.4

[Antonio Trande]

None specific requirement. Maybe Sergio has one:

"Cool , so you may update libmfx on epel 7 ? please"

On Fri, Nov 23, 2018 at 2:05 PM Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski <
domi...@greysector.net> wrote:

> On Friday, 23 November 2018 at 12:19, Antonio Trande wrote:
> > Good!
> > Let's go with ffmpeg-3.4.5 + x264-0.148 + libmfx-1.23 (push it on el7
> > please) + x265-2.9
>
> As I said, we don't have to update libmfx in EPEL. Do you have a
> specific requirement to do that (other than to be closer to Fedora)?
>
> Regards,
> Dominik
>
>

-- 

*--Antonio Trande*

*mail*: mailto:sagit...@fedoraproject.org 
___
rpmfusion-developers mailing list -- rpmfusion-developers@lists.rpmfusion.org
To unsubscribe send an email to rpmfusion-developers-le...@lists.rpmfusion.org

Re: [el7] ffmpeg-3.3 vs ffmpeg-3.4

[Antonio Trande]

Good!
Let's go with ffmpeg-3.4.5 + x264-0.148 + libmfx-1.23 (push it on el7
please) + x265-2.9

On Fri, Nov 23, 2018 at 2:56 AM Sérgio Basto  wrote:

> On Thu, 2018-11-22 at 22:16 +0100, Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski
> wrote:
> > On Thursday, 22 November 2018 at 18:13, Antonio Trande wrote:
> > > Hi all again.
> > >
> > > What FFmpeg version we prefer for el7?
> > > ffmpeg-3.3.8 or ffmpeg-3.4.1 (from ffmpeg-3.4.1-4.fc28
> > > <http://koji.rpmfusion.org/koji/buildinfo?buildID=5867>)?
> > >
> > > ffmpeg-3.4 needs libmfx-devel >= 1.23-1, so libmfx owner on Fedora
> > > should
> > > rebuild it if possible for el7 before.
> >
> > That's not actually correct. FFmpeg 3.4.x doesn't require newer
> > libmfx,
> > but of course we can update both at the same time. libmfx has an ABI
> > break between 1.21 and 1.23. As for FFmpeg, I would recommend
> > updating
> > to 3.4.5, which was released 3 weeks ago.
>
> Cool , so you may update libmfx on epel 7 ? please
>
> if you recommend ffmpeg 3.4.5 , I also recommend it. Usually is the
> version with less bugs on 3.x.x series.
>
> Thanks,
> --
>


-- 

*--Antonio Trande*

*mail*: mailto:sagit...@fedoraproject.org 
___
rpmfusion-developers mailing list -- rpmfusion-developers@lists.rpmfusion.org
To unsubscribe send an email to rpmfusion-developers-le...@lists.rpmfusion.org

Re: [el7] ffmpeg-3.3 vs ffmpeg-3.4

[Antonio Trande]

Nicolas did a question about this perspective:

"The one last question is do we go directly with ffmpeg 3.4 or keep 3.3
here ? I'm fine either way."

On Thu, Nov 22, 2018 at 8:41 PM Sérgio Basto  wrote:

> Before you take over I think we (RPMFusion) agree copy things from F27 ,
> Fmmpeg , x264 etc
>
> FFmpeg 3.3 and x264 0.148
>
> El7 is one stable branch we need think in stable and wide tested releases
> .
>
> On Thu, 2018-11-22 at 18:13 +0100, Antonio Trande wrote:
>
> Hi all again.
>
> What FFmpeg version we prefer for el7?
> ffmpeg-3.3.8 or ffmpeg-3.4.1 (from ffmpeg-3.4.1-4.fc28
> <http://koji.rpmfusion.org/koji/buildinfo?buildID=5867>)?
>
> ffmpeg-3.4 needs libmfx-devel >= 1.23-1, so libmfx owner on Fedora should
> rebuild it if possible for el7 before.
>
> Thanks.
> --
>
> *--Antonio Trande*
>
> *mail*: mailto:sagit...@fedoraproject.org 
>
> ___
> rpmfusion-developers mailing list -- rpmfusion-developers@lists.rpmfusion.org
> To unsubscribe send an email to rpmfusion-developers-le...@lists.rpmfusion.org
>
> --
>
> Sérgio M. B.
>
>

-- 

*--Antonio Trande*

*mail*: mailto:sagit...@fedoraproject.org 
___
rpmfusion-developers mailing list -- rpmfusion-developers@lists.rpmfusion.org
To unsubscribe send an email to rpmfusion-developers-le...@lists.rpmfusion.org

[el7] gpac-devel-static

[Antonio Trande]

Hi.

About gpac, i see a 'gpac-devel-static' sub-package created that, as you
know, is a naming method not permitted for Fedora guidelines [1][2].
There are two choices in these cases in my opinion:

1 - Rename 'gpac-devel-static' as 'gpac-static'
2 - Include static file into gpac-devel since there is not many difference
of
disk usage (gpac-devel include static file) and add a Provides tag

$ du -bc --block-size M /usr/lib64/libgpac_static.a
9M/usr/lib64/libgpac_static.a
9Mtotal

$ yum info gpac-devel | grep Size
Size: 10 M

[1]
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#packaging-static-libraries
[2] https://rpmfusion.org/Contributors#Read_the_packaging_guidelines

-- 

*--Antonio Trande*

*mail*: mailto:sagit...@fedoraproject.org 
___
rpmfusion-developers mailing list -- rpmfusion-developers@lists.rpmfusion.org
To unsubscribe send an email to rpmfusion-developers-le...@lists.rpmfusion.org

[el7] ffmpeg-3.3 vs ffmpeg-3.4

[Antonio Trande]

Hi all again.

What FFmpeg version we prefer for el7?
ffmpeg-3.3.8 or ffmpeg-3.4.1 (from ffmpeg-3.4.1-4.fc28
<http://koji.rpmfusion.org/koji/buildinfo?buildID=5867>)?

ffmpeg-3.4 needs libmfx-devel >= 1.23-1, so libmfx owner on Fedora should
rebuild it if possible for el7 before.

Thanks.
-- 

*--Antonio Trande*

*mail*: mailto:sagit...@fedoraproject.org 
___
rpmfusion-developers mailing list -- rpmfusion-developers@lists.rpmfusion.org
To unsubscribe send an email to rpmfusion-developers-le...@lists.rpmfusion.org

Re: [el7] gstreamer-plugins-ugly vs x264-0.155

[Antonio Trande]

>Antonio , some time ago we (RPMFusion) agree use x264-0.148 in el7

Does exist any else past decision that i need to know before to do again
everything?

PS.
Mail sent without GPG signature via gmail.

On Thu, Nov 22, 2018 at 3:32 PM Sérgio Basto  wrote:

> On Thu, 2018-11-22 at 14:00 +0100, Antonio Trande wrote:
> > It's a possibility, but i must rebuild all related packages again!
>
> Antonio , some time ago we (RPMFusion) agree use x264-0.148 in el7 ( I
> was not sure when wrote to you some day ago) .
> We choose x264-0.148 because is really stable. After 3 years and only
> on 2017-12-30 we update to 0.152, these new versions change the asm
> compiler and change 8 and 10 bits way of dealing with it .
>
> So please , let's use x264-0.148, thanks for your work .
> Cheers,
>
> > On 22/11/18 13:16, Leigh Scott wrote:
> > > Use x264-0.148 instead!
> > > ___
> > > rpmfusion-developers mailing list -- rpmfusion-develop...@lists.rpm
> > > fusion.org
> > > To unsubscribe send an email to rpmfusion-developers-le...@lists.rp
> > > mfusion.org
> > >
> >
> > ___
> > rpmfusion-developers mailing list -- rpmfusion-developers@lists.rpmfu
> > sion.org
> > To unsubscribe send an email to rpmfusion-developers-le...@lists.rpmf
> > usion.org
> --
> Sérgio M. B.
> ___
> rpmfusion-developers mailing list --
> rpmfusion-developers@lists.rpmfusion.org
> To unsubscribe send an email to
> rpmfusion-developers-le...@lists.rpmfusion.org
>


-- 

*--Antonio Trande*

*mail*: mailto:sagit...@fedoraproject.org 
___
rpmfusion-developers mailing list -- rpmfusion-developers@lists.rpmfusion.org
To unsubscribe send an email to rpmfusion-developers-le...@lists.rpmfusion.org

Re: [el7] gstreamer-plugins-ugly vs x264-0.155

[Antonio Trande]

It's a possibility, but i must rebuild all related packages again!

On 22/11/18 13:16, Leigh Scott wrote:
> Use x264-0.148 instead!
> ___
> rpmfusion-developers mailing list -- rpmfusion-developers@lists.rpmfusion.org
> To unsubscribe send an email to rpmfusion-developers-le...@lists.rpmfusion.org
> 

-- 
---
Antonio Trande
Fedora Project
mailto 'sagitter at fedoraproject dot org'
GPG key: 0x6e0331dd1699e4d7
GPG key server: https://keys.fedoraproject.org/



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
___
rpmfusion-developers mailing list -- rpmfusion-developers@lists.rpmfusion.org
To unsubscribe send an email to rpmfusion-developers-le...@lists.rpmfusion.org

[el7] gstreamer-plugins-ugly vs x264-0.155

[Antonio Trande]

Hi all.

As you know, i'm rebasing some packages on el7 branch against x264-0.155.
'gstreamer-plugins-ugly-1.10.5' on epel7 is not ready for 'x264-0.155'
but can be patched for this. Is anyone able to create a patch for
'gstreamer-plugins-ugly-1.10.5'?

For info:
https://gitlab.freedesktop.org/gstreamer/gst-plugins-ugly/issues/23

Thanks.
-- 
---
Antonio Trande
Fedora Project
mailto 'sagitter at fedoraproject dot org'
GPG key: 0x6e0331dd1699e4d7
GPG key server: https://keys.fedoraproject.org/



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
___
rpmfusion-developers mailing list -- rpmfusion-developers@lists.rpmfusion.org
To unsubscribe send an email to rpmfusion-developers-le...@lists.rpmfusion.org

Re: Upgrading EL7 with a newer ffmpeg

[Antonio Trande]

On 20/11/18 17:24, Nicolas Chauvet wrote:
> Le mar. 20 nov. 2018 à 16:51, Antonio Trande  a écrit :
> [...]
>> Most of packages treated in this discussion follow the packaging
>> timeline of the rawhide branch except these
>>
>> ffmpeg
>> audacity-freeworld
>> mpd
>> mpv
>> qmmp-plugins-freeworld
>>
>> which update the releases currently hosted on el7 branch but are
>> previous versions of those hosted on rawhide.
> The -freeworld package probably needs to match the epel/rhel
> counterpart so cannot be updated, indeed.
> But any issue to update mpd/mpv ? can the related maintainers

If i remember fine, newer mpd/mpv need most recent GCC compiler
versions, therefore cannot be compiled on el7.

> 
>> For example:
>>
>> 'x264-0.155-3.20180806git0a84d98.el7' can be pushed on rawhide and then
>> propagated on el7.
> 
> I'm not sure I'm following as appropriate.
> Basically you shouldn't merge anything back to master but instead
> create an original patch on master (once reviewed by maintainer) and
> merge back to el7

Exactly what i meant (except that for packages i listed above).

> So that's raise the question of how many changes are need to make
> theses packages build ? do you need patching ? disable/enable some
> libraries ?
> (if anything to publish can you use the github.com/rpmfusion mirrors ?)

All changes done for el7 rebuilds do not negatively influence the builds
on master. Most of modifications are harmless, but valid both for Fedora
and epel.

For this reason i'm spreading the srpms
(https://sagitter.fedorapeople.org/centos7/) for everyone.
Hope that in these days all original maintainers of involved packages
are checking what i have modified in their own packages.

> 
> So if you mean to turn on/off x264 bootstrap, you can commit to master
> with bootstrap, merge into el7, then turn off bootstrap in master and
> merge el7.
> 
> On a side note, I've just found that you have taken the x264 version
> from rawhide and not a x264 that is contemporary from the same ffmpeg
> branch (fc27).
> I'm fine with that except that this combination is probably less
> tested than the fc27 combination (but we also have a well known issue
> fixed in x264 in rawhide, so either way).

Yes, it is so.
x264-0.155 + ffmpeg-3.3.8

> But then you have missed to rebuild gstreamer1-plugins-ugly (that uses x264)
> Also what about updating x265 (from 1.9 to at least to 2.9 which is
> the version in fc27).
> 
> Thx

Okay.
I will look into them.

-- 
---
Antonio Trande
Fedora Project
mailto 'sagitter at fedoraproject dot org'
GPG key: 0x6e0331dd1699e4d7
GPG key server: https://keys.fedoraproject.org/



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
___
rpmfusion-developers mailing list -- rpmfusion-developers@lists.rpmfusion.org
To unsubscribe send an email to rpmfusion-developers-le...@lists.rpmfusion.org

Re: Upgrading EL7 with a newer ffmpeg

[Antonio Trande]

On 20/11/18 15:58, Nicolas Chauvet wrote:
> Le mer. 14 nov. 2018 à 15:00, Antonio Trande  a écrit :
>>
>> All srpm are ready:
>> https://sagitter.fedorapeople.org/centos7/
>>
>> I have conformed/patched some of them to recent Fedora packaging guidelines.
> Okay, so after digging into this 35 email-replies thread , finally
> find out this one-important-answer.
> 
> So Please everyone try to keep the topic of this thread and start a
> new thread for sub-topic or side things.
> Thx in advances.
> 
> The one last question is do we go directly with ffmpeg 3.4 or keep 3.3
> here ? I'm fine either way.

Please, remember that all packages updated for rpmfusion-epel7 are built
against ffmpeg-3.3, not against ffmpeg-3.4.

> 
> @Antonio  thx for the work done. I'm going to upgrade you as
> provenpackager in rpmfusion so you can handle the update as
> appropriate.
> On a side note, I recommend to go with fast forward merge when
> possible and squashed merged when fast forward is not possible.
> (or should we leave the maintainer do the update ?)
> 
> Don't forget to bootstrap x264 in the first step.

Okay.

Most of packages treated in this discussion follow the packaging
timeline of the rawhide branch except these

ffmpeg
audacity-freeworld
mpd
mpv
qmmp-plugins-freeworld

which update the releases currently hosted on el7 branch but are
previous versions of those hosted on rawhide.

For example:

'x264-0.155-3.20180806git0a84d98.el7' can be pushed on rawhide and then
propagated on el7.

'ffmpeg-3.3.8-2.el7' can NOT be pushed on rawhide (ffmpeg-4.1 now
populates rawhide branch), but on el7 ONLY.

Once pushed an updated srpm on el7, we should update the Changelogs of
the releases on rawhide too.


> If needed, we could keep the package in testing a little longer in
> order to have everything tested more accurately.
>

Surely. In testing until everything works fine.


-- 
---
Antonio Trande
Fedora Project
mailto 'sagitter at fedoraproject dot org'
GPG key: 0x6e0331dd1699e4d7
GPG key server: https://keys.fedoraproject.org/



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
___
rpmfusion-developers mailing list -- rpmfusion-developers@lists.rpmfusion.org
To unsubscribe send an email to rpmfusion-developers-le...@lists.rpmfusion.org

Fwd: Upgrading EL7 with a newer ffmpeg

[Antonio Trande]

All packages are built fine on local, test them yourself.
Only the tvheadend/dtv-scan-tables issue is pending.

PS.
Mail sent without GPG signature from Windows.

On Mon, Nov 19, 2018 at 11:20 PM Nicolas Chauvet  wrote:

> Le lun. 19 nov. 2018 à 17:52, Antonio Trande  a
> écrit :
> ...
> > > Also I think the primary task was to build ffmpeg on el7,
> >
> > How? Who must manage this migration?
> > I prepared the srpms but i don't have the permissions to push them on
> > RPMFusion.
> Well I'm sorry , but this is exactly what you were supposed to
> work on, tests how things build using a local mock and tell us the
> result.
> So what is the result of this testing ?
>
>
> --
> -
>
> Nicolas (kwizart)
>


-- 

*--Antonio Trande*

*mail*: mailto:sagit...@fedoraproject.org 
___
rpmfusion-developers mailing list -- rpmfusion-developers@lists.rpmfusion.org
To unsubscribe send an email to rpmfusion-developers-le...@lists.rpmfusion.org

Upgrading EL7 with a newer ffmpeg

[Antonio Trande]

On 19/11/18 17:23, Nicolas Chauvet wrote:
> Le ven. 16 nov. 2018 à 22:37, Antonio Trande  a écrit :
>>
>> Review request for 'dtv-scan-tables' on el7-free branch only:
>> https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=5082
> 
> Sorry if I've missed things, but could we have this package in epel7 instead ?

No. 'v4l-utils' from centos7 is too old.

> If we need a more recent v4l-utils than what's in epel7 can we build
> an older dtv-scan-tables ?

I don't like work on old stuff.

> 
> Also I think the primary task was to build ffmpeg on el7, 

How? Who must manage this migration?
I prepared the srpms but i don't have the permissions to push them on
RPMFusion.

> if tvheadend
> dependencies is broken one can either:
> - Drop the dtv-scan-tables from our el7 package

'dtv-scan-tables' is not in RPMfusion-el7 neither on Fedora-epel7.

> - provide dtv-scan-tables in a copr repo for el7 until it can be
> allowed into epel.
> 
> Thx for your work on this.
> 

-- 
---
Antonio Trande
Fedora Project
mailto 'sagitter at fedoraproject dot org'
GPG key: 0x5E212EE1D35568BE
GPG key server: https://keys.fedoraproject.org/

-- 
---
Antonio Trande
Fedora Project
mailto 'sagitter at fedoraproject dot org'
GPG key: 0x6e0331dd1699e4d7
GPG key server: https://keys.fedoraproject.org/



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
___
rpmfusion-developers mailing list -- rpmfusion-developers@lists.rpmfusion.org
To unsubscribe send an email to rpmfusion-developers-le...@lists.rpmfusion.org

Re: Upgrading EL7 with a newer ffmpeg

[Antonio Trande]

Review request for 'dtv-scan-tables' on el7-free branch only:
https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=5082

On 16/11/18 15:34, Nicolas Chauvet wrote:
> Hi Antonio,
> 
> Do you have an answer from Mauro on this topic ?
> The dtv.scan package should be provided on the epel side, please
> request any provenpackager to help fix the package there if needed
> (and Mauro do not answer).
> 
> Any issue on other ffmpeg/x264/x265 packages for el7 ?
> 
> Thx
> 

-- 
---
Antonio Trande
Fedora Project
mailto 'sagitter at fedoraproject dot org'
GPG key: 0x5E212EE1D35568BE
GPG key server: https://keys.fedoraproject.org/



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
___
rpmfusion-developers mailing list -- rpmfusion-developers@lists.rpmfusion.org
To unsubscribe send an email to rpmfusion-developers-le...@lists.rpmfusion.org

Re: Upgrading EL7 with a newer ffmpeg

[Antonio Trande]

Well, yes. Last one yesterday.

I don't see this discussion on
https://lists.rpmfusion.org/archives/list/rpmfusion-developers@lists.rpmfusion.org/

On 16/11/18 15:34, Nicolas Chauvet wrote:
> Hi Antonio,
> 
> Do you have an answer from Mauro on this topic ?
> The dtv.scan package should be provided on the epel side, please
> request any provenpackager to help fix the package there if needed
> (and Mauro do not answer).
> 
> Any issue on other ffmpeg/x264/x265 packages for el7 ?
> 
> Thx
> 

-- 
---
Antonio Trande
Fedora Project
mailto 'sagitter at fedoraproject dot org'
GPG key: 0x5E212EE1D35568BE
GPG key server: https://keys.fedoraproject.org/



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
___
rpmfusion-developers mailing list -- rpmfusion-developers@lists.rpmfusion.org
To unsubscribe send an email to rpmfusion-developers-le...@lists.rpmfusion.org

Re: Upgrading EL7 with a newer ffmpeg

[Antonio Trande]

What's the fate of these srpms now?
Should i  push them myself on repos?

On 14/11/18 15:00, Antonio Trande wrote:
> All srpm are ready:
> https://sagitter.fedorapeople.org/centos7/
> 
> I have conformed/patched some of them to recent Fedora packaging guidelines.
> 
> Just tvheadend-4.2.7 has a missing dependence (dtv-scan-tables) that is
> not on Fedora neither on CentOS.
> 

-- 
---
Antonio Trande
Fedora Project
mailto 'sagitter at fedoraproject dot org'
GPG key: 0x5E212EE1D35568BE
GPG key server: https://keys.fedoraproject.org/



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
___
rpmfusion-developers mailing list -- rpmfusion-developers@lists.rpmfusion.org
To unsubscribe send an email to rpmfusion-developers-le...@lists.rpmfusion.org

Re: Upgrading EL7 with a newer ffmpeg

[Antonio Trande]

On 15/11/18 05:17, Mauro Carvalho Chehab wrote:
> Hi Antônio,

Hi Mauro.

> 
> Em Wed, 14 Nov 2018 15:22:16 +0100
> Antonio  escreveu:
> 
>> Even on Fedora it's not available; it's built [1] and not pushed as
>> updates [2] since long time.
>>
>> 1- https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/packageinfo?packageID=17627
>> 2- https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/?packages=dtv-scan-tables
>>
>> PS.
>> I've CC the package owner.
> 
> Yeah, I didn't push it for a while. Sorry for that.
> 
> 
> Just updated the package for Fedora 28, 29 and rawhide:
> 
> https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2018-859dd67477
> https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2018-8759b505c3
> 
> And asked for pushing it to testing:
> 
>https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/?packages=dtv-scan-tables

Please, build it for el7 too. I can take care of the srpm in that branch.

Just an advice:

the method you're using to release new checkouts of dtv-scan-tables
looks not correct.

Latest release 'dtv-scan-tables-1-1.20180606gitc2b6af67f7d8.fc28' has a
release number lesser than older
'dtv-scan-tables-1-8.20161007git0b42d8e8b44e.fc28'.

At every checkout of the same version ( version number 1), you should
increment the **release number**; in this way

dtv-scan-tables-1-**10**.20180606gitc2b6af67f7d8.fc28
dtv-scan-tables-1-**10**.20180606gitc2b6af67f7d8.fc29
dtv-scan-tables-1-**10**.20180606gitc2b6af67f7d8.fc30
dtv-scan-tables-1-**9**.20171226git07b18ecef174.fc29
dtv-scan-tables-1-8.20161007git0b42d8e8b44e.fc28
dtv-scan-tables-1-7.20161007git0b42d8e8b44e.fc27
...

See these examples:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Package_Versioning_Examples#Complex_versioning_examples

Best regards.
-- 
---
Antonio Trande
Fedora Project
mailto 'sagitter at fedoraproject dot org'
GPG key: 0x5E212EE1D35568BE
GPG key server: https://keys.fedoraproject.org/



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
___
rpmfusion-developers mailing list -- rpmfusion-developers@lists.rpmfusion.org
To unsubscribe send an email to rpmfusion-developers-le...@lists.rpmfusion.org

Re: Upgrading EL7 with a newer ffmpeg

[Antonio Trande]

All srpm are ready:
https://sagitter.fedorapeople.org/centos7/

I have conformed/patched some of them to recent Fedora packaging guidelines.

Just tvheadend-4.2.7 has a missing dependence (dtv-scan-tables) that is
not on Fedora neither on CentOS.

-- 
---
Antonio Trande
Fedora Project
mailto 'sagitter at fedoraproject dot org'
GPG key: 0x5E212EE1D35568BE
GPG key server: https://keys.fedoraproject.org/



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
___
rpmfusion-developers mailing list -- rpmfusion-developers@lists.rpmfusion.org
To unsubscribe send an email to rpmfusion-developers-le...@lists.rpmfusion.org

Re: Upgrading EL7 with a newer ffmpeg

[Antonio Trande]

Packages ready:

ffmpeg-3.3.8-2.el7.src.rpm
(opus support disabled)

gpac-0.7.1-7.el7.src.rpm
libquicktime-1.2.4-35.112.20180804gitfff99cd.el7.src.rpm
mjpegtools-2.1.0-14.el7.src.rpm
mlt-freeworld-6.4.1-2.el7.src.rpm
mplayer-1.3.0-27.20180620svn.el7.src.rpm

vlc-3.0.5-6.el7.src.rpm
(vlc-2.2.8 does not support ffmpeg-3*)

x264-0.155-3.20180806git0a84d98_bootstrap.el7.src.rpm
x264-0.155-3.20180806git0a84d98.el7.src.rpm
xine-lib-1.2.9-11.el7.src.rpm

Tomorrow, i will look the others rpms.
-- 
---
Antonio Trande
Fedora Project
mailto 'sagitter at fedoraproject dot org'
GPG key: 0x5E212EE1D35568BE
GPG key server: https://keys.fedoraproject.org/



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
___
rpmfusion-developers mailing list -- rpmfusion-developers@lists.rpmfusion.org
To unsubscribe send an email to rpmfusion-developers-le...@lists.rpmfusion.org

Re: Upgrading EL7 with a newer ffmpeg

[Antonio Trande]

Do you need a packager for FFmpeg on el7?

On 11/11/18 12:52, Nicolas Chauvet wrote:
> Le ven. 21 sept. 2018 à 21:01, Nicolas Chauvet  a écrit :
>>
>> 2018-09-21 20:54 GMT+02:00 Sérgio Basto :
>>
>>>
>>> I have one vm with epel 7 , have you any scratch build (or src.rpm) ?
>>> what you mean or where are "forwarded the patches"  ?
>> The patches to compile ffmpeg 3.3 in el7 are available into the f27 branch.
>> So you can submit a scratch build for el7 based on the fc27 branch as a 
>> start.
> 
> Still anyone to be able to work on this ?
> Thx
> 

-- 
---
Antonio Trande
Fedora Project
mailto 'sagitter at fedoraproject dot org'
GPG key: 0x5E212EE1D35568BE
GPG key server: https://keys.fedoraproject.org/



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
___
rpmfusion-developers mailing list -- rpmfusion-developers@lists.rpmfusion.org
To unsubscribe send an email to rpmfusion-developers-le...@lists.rpmfusion.org

Re: Please hold your build

[Antonio Trande]

Okay.
Please, let me know when we can work again.

On 12/09/2018 12:23, Nicolas Chauvet wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> Please hold any build or scratch build until the next packages push.
> 
> Because the way the qt5 update was done, there are few packages that
> need rebuild in urgency and that we will push right to stable updates.
> We need all the infra resources for building and preparing the repos,
> so please hold your build until the next package got published.
> 
> Thx for your understanding.
> 

-- 
---
Antonio Trande
Fedora Project
mailto 'sagitter at fedoraproject dot org'
GPG key: 0x5E212EE1D35568BE
GPG key server: https://keys.fedoraproject.org/



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
___
rpmfusion-developers mailing list -- rpmfusion-developers@lists.rpmfusion.org
To unsubscribe send an email to rpmfusion-developers-le...@lists.rpmfusion.org

El7 builds broken for missing CMake

[Antonio Trande]

Hello everyone.

My scratch builds on el7-free repository are failing for missing
'Packages/c/cmake3-3.12.0-1.el7.x86_64.rpm':

http://koji.rpmfusion.org/kojifiles/work/tasks/6968/256968/root.log

-- 
---
Antonio Trande
Fedora Project
mailto 'sagitter at fedoraproject dot org'
GPG key: 0x5E212EE1D35568BE
GPG key server: https://keys.fedoraproject.org/



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
___
rpmfusion-developers mailing list -- rpmfusion-developers@lists.rpmfusion.org
To unsubscribe send an email to rpmfusion-developers-le...@lists.rpmfusion.org

Re: Upgrading EL7 with a newer ffmpeg

[Antonio Trande]

Hi.

Which of these packages aren't regularly reviewed?
Packagers who already work and wish work with these packages even on
epel7 should reply before.

On 04/09/2018 12:35, Nicolas Chauvet wrote:
> Hi there,
> 
> 
> With the update gstreamer packages to 1.10.4 (that was due in RHEL 7.4
> already), the gstreamer1-libav package has bumped the requirement to
> ffmpeg 3.X. So we are currently in a in-between state.
> 
> There is also a need to a newer ffmpeg with vlc 3.x that I consider
> upgrading EL7 to (current vlc 2.2.x version is unmaintained, even
> debian stable updated from 2.2.x to 3.x because of that).
> 
> We might give an opportunity to update x264/x265 too and eventually
> refresh some dependencies here.
> 
> My plans would be to update to either ffmpeg 3.3x or 3.4.x (the latest
> from the 3.x branch). there is already a compat-ffmpeg28 package ready
> to ease the transition.
> 
> There isn't a terribly high number of el7 packages that depends on
> ffmpeg fortunately (or not).
> And it's a shame because EL7 has way more users than any Fedora
> releases together (according to epel stats (2)).
> So I really would like some volunteer to take a deeper look at what we
> can support here.
> 
> Thx
> 
> 
> 
> (1)
> $ repoquery --whatrequires libavcodec.so.56\* --source
> audacity-freeworld-2.0.6-1.el7.src.rpm
> ffmpeg-2.8.15-1.el7.src.rpm
> ffmpegthumbnailer-2.2.0-3.el7.src.rpm
> ffms2-2.23-2.el7.src.rpm
> gpac-0.6.1-1.el7.src.rpm
> ffmpeg-2.8.15-1.el7.src.rpm
> libopenshot-0.2.0-1.el7.src.rpm
> libquicktime-1.2.4-13.el7.src.rpm
> mplayer-1.1-23.20140414svn.el7.src.rpm
> mlt-freeworld-6.4.1-1.el7.src.rpm
> motion-3.3.0-trunkREV557.9.el7.src.rpm
> mpd-0.19.21-1.el7.src.rpm
> mplayer-1.1-23.20140414svn.el7.src.rpm
> mpv-0.23.0-3.el7.src.rpm
> libopenshot-0.2.0-1.el7.src.rpm
> qmmp-plugins-freeworld-0.8.8-1.el7.src.rpm
> libopenshot-0.2.0-1.el7.src.rpm
> simplescreenrecorder-0.3.11-1.el7.src.rpm
> transcode-1.1.7-17.el7.src.rpm
> tvheadend-4.0.9-3.el7.src.rpm
> vlc-2.2.8-2.el7.src.rpm
> x264-0.148-11.20160614gita5e06b9.el7.src.rpm
> xine-lib-1.2.9-2.el7.src.rpm
> zoneminder-1.30.4-3.el7.src.rpm
> 
> (2)
> https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mirrormanager/statistics/2018-09-04/repositories
> 

-- 
---
Antonio Trande
Fedora Project
mailto 'sagitter at fedoraproject dot org'
GPG key: 0x5E212EE1D35568BE
GPG key server: https://keys.fedoraproject.org/



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
___
rpmfusion-developers mailing list -- rpmfusion-developers@lists.rpmfusion.org
To unsubscribe send an email to rpmfusion-developers-le...@lists.rpmfusion.org

Re: [moc] Use %%{?_isa} on 'Requires' package

[Antonio Trande]

On 24/04/2018 18:18, Nicolas Chauvet wrote:
> 2018-04-24 18:04 GMT+02:00 Antonio <sagit...@rpmfusion.org>:
>> commit c1e20ce483dd65186e868eba8d83f2684f1401b7
>> Author: sagitter <sagit...@fedoraproject.org>
>> Date:   Tue Apr 24 18:04:29 2018 +0200
>>
>> Use %%{?_isa} on 'Requires' package
> 
>> -Requires: ffmpeg
>> +Requires: ffmpeg%{?_isa}
> 
> Why such change ?

Indeed ffmpeg is not needed by MOC for working.
I removed it.

-- 
---
Antonio Trande
Fedora Project
mailto 'sagitter at fedoraproject dot org'
GPG key: 0x5E212EE1D35568BE
GPG key server: https://keys.fedoraproject.org/



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
___
rpmfusion-developers mailing list -- rpmfusion-developers@lists.rpmfusion.org
To unsubscribe send an email to rpmfusion-developers-le...@lists.rpmfusion.org

koji-rpmfusion sslv3 alert certificate

[Antonio Trande]

Hello everyone.

'koji-rpmfusion' does not work because of this error:

$ koji-rpmfusion build --scratch free-rawhide
moc-2.6-0.26.alpha3.fc27.src.rpm
Error: [('SSL routines', 'ssl3_read_bytes', 'sslv3 alert certificate
expired')]

I have already created and imported a new certificate from RPMFusion,
but nothing is changed.

-- 
---
Antonio Trande
Fedora Project
mailto 'sagitter at fedoraproject dot org'
GPG key: 0x5E212EE1D35568BE
GPG key server: https://keys.fedoraproject.org/



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
___
rpmfusion-developers mailing list -- rpmfusion-developers@lists.rpmfusion.org
To unsubscribe send an email to rpmfusion-developers-le...@lists.rpmfusion.org

Fwd: LiVES 2.8.9 relesed

[Antonio Trande]

 Forwarded Message 
Subject:LiVES 2.8.9 relesed
Date:   Thu, 15 Mar 2018 13:46:45 -0300
From:   salsaman 
To: João Luís Marques Pinto , Alessio Treglia
, enc...@users.sourceforge.net, Glen MacArthur
, concombres fraises ,
lu_z...@gentoo.org, Vasiliy Glazov , Ulisses Leitão
, sagit...@fedoraproject.org



IMPORTANT: LiVES version 2.8.8 (released 10 Mar 2018) contained a
serious dataloss issue.
Please do not create production builds from it. Use this version (2.8.9)
instead.

This message is intended for packagers of LiVES (http://lives-video.com
). Please forward as appropriate. Please let me
know if any addresses should be added to or removed from this list.


Hi all,
first of all apologies. It turns out there was a dataloss issue with
version 2.8.8 which I have now fixed. In case anybody opened any Sets
with version 2.8.8 you will need to follow the procedure outlined in the
Release Notes here: http://lives-video.com/index.php?do=downloads


Another old issue to do with GUI timing reared it's ugly head again in
2.8.8. This could cause a crash when reloading Sets or recovering files.
I believe I now have the definitive fix for this, and it is included in
2.8.9. If anybody still experiences a crash with the text
"Gtk:ERROR:/build/gtk+3.0-2Ut_nl/gtk+3.0-3.18.9/./gtk/gtkprogressbar.c:611:tick_cb:
assertion failed: (priv->pulse2 > priv->pulse1)" or similar please let
me know.



Changelog for 2.8.9
-
Fix dataloss and crash issues from 2.8.8.

URLS:

http://lives-video.com/releases/LiVES-2.8.9.tar.bz2

(source bzip2, 3.9 MB)

http://lives-video.com/releases/LiVES-2.8.9.tar.gz

(source gzip, 5.3 MB)



shasums:

sha1sums:

3df6f59110d6b3b5cbd5fe9d07636620ed83bef8  LiVES-2.8.9.tar.bz2
f2c55fe2340c8aaeaa56d4213e535fd100316ae7  LiVES-2.8.9.tar.gz


sha256sums:

c9c205bbfa1b900a88974fd7f04f00c222fc536264b0ba4c902babb6d0f0997d
LiVES-2.8.9.tar.bz2
b8e5e5ccc0798a1d4f70e26e470eba6950d84fb795cd814fcfac291cedf38785
LiVES-2.8.9.tar.gz

gpg key fingerprint can be found at
http://lives-video.com/index.php?do=contact


Gabriel.

http://lives-video.com
https://www.openhub.net/accounts/salsaman




signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
___
rpmfusion-developers mailing list -- rpmfusion-developers@lists.rpmfusion.org
To unsubscribe send an email to rpmfusion-developers-le...@lists.rpmfusion.org

Fedora's packages rebuilds not synchronized

[Antonio Trande]

Hello.

Packages from Fedora repositories have not same version on all
architectures:

'lives' rebuild on f29 uses 'libfreenect-0.5.7' on x86_64 and aarch64,
instead it uses (broken) 'libfreenect-0.5.5' on PPC* and i686:

http://koji.rpmfusion.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=211412

-- 
---
Antonio Trande
Fedora Project
mailto 'sagitter at fedoraproject dot org'
GPG key: 0x5E212EE1D35568BE
GPG key server: https://keys.fedoraproject.org/



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
___
rpmfusion-developers mailing list -- rpmfusion-developers@lists.rpmfusion.org
To unsubscribe send an email to rpmfusion-developers-le...@lists.rpmfusion.org

Re: Access to the Rpmfusion repositories

[Antonio Trande]

On 13/12/2017 12:30, Nicolas Chauvet wrote:
>> I had already used 'rpmfusion-packager-setup' and downloaded the
>> certificate from https://admin.rpmfusion.org/accounts/user/gencert
> 
> Sure, but was that done recently enough for the certificate to be
> still valid ?

Yes. I downloaded it again when i realized of the access problem.

> Also do you have the recently server root ca.
> I wonder if you have run kinit for the fedpkg side ? Does it conflicts
> with rfpkg ?
> 
> Thx

I don't know.

-- 
---
Antonio Trande
Fedora Project
mailto 'sagitter at fedoraproject dot org'
GPG key: 0x5E212EE1D35568BE
GPG key server: https://keys.fedoraproject.org/



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
___
rpmfusion-developers mailing list -- rpmfusion-developers@lists.rpmfusion.org
To unsubscribe send an email to rpmfusion-developers-le...@lists.rpmfusion.org

Re: Access to the Rpmfusion repositories

[Antonio Trande]

On 13/12/2017 09:59, Nicolas Chauvet wrote:
> 2017-12-08 10:56 GMT+01:00 Antonio Trande <anto.tra...@gmail.com>:
>> On 08/12/2017 02:13, Sérgio Basto wrote:
> 
>>> please try :
>>> rfpkg --user   sagitter   clone free/lives
>>>
>>
>> This command is working.
> 
> Are you sure to have a valid x509 certificate ? In which case your
> username might not be found.
> Please move out older ones (including older  server root CA) and use
> rpmfusion-packager-setup to fetch the new ones.
> mkdir tmp ; move ~/.rpmfusion* tmp ; rpmfusion-packager-setup
> 
> Please don't stay quiet if anything wrong.
> ___


I had already used 'rpmfusion-packager-setup' and downloaded the
certificate from https://admin.rpmfusion.org/accounts/user/gencert

-- 
---
Antonio Trande
Fedora Project
mailto 'sagitter at fedoraproject dot org'
GPG key: 0x5E212EE1D35568BE
GPG key server: https://keys.fedoraproject.org/



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
___
rpmfusion-developers mailing list -- rpmfusion-developers@lists.rpmfusion.org
To unsubscribe send an email to rpmfusion-developers-le...@lists.rpmfusion.org

Re: Access to the Rpmfusion repositories

[Antonio Trande]

On 08/12/2017 02:13, Sérgio Basto wrote:
> On Thu, 2017-12-07 at 22:47 +0100, Antonio Trande wrote:
>> On 07/12/2017 09:36, Nicolas Chauvet wrote:
>>> 2017-12-06 22:36 GMT+01:00 Antonio Trande <anto.tra...@gmail.com>:
>>>> Hi all.
>>>>
>>>> I can't checkout a package's GIT module:
>>>>
>>>> $ rfpkg clone free/lives
>>>> Deprecation warning: kojiconfig is deprecated. Instead,
>>>> kojiprofile
>>>> should be used.
>>>> Cloning into 'lives'...
>>>> ssh: Could not resolve hostname # my fas username# https: Name or
>>>> service not known
>>>> fatal: Could not read from remote repository.
>>>>
>>>> Please make sure you have the correct access rights
>>>> and the repository exists.
>>>> Could not execute clone: Command '['git', 'clone', 'ssh://# My
>>>> FAS
>>>> username#
>>>> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Infrastructure/Kerberossagitter@pk
>>>> gs.rpmfusion.org/free/lives',
>>>> '--origin', 'origin']' returned non-zero exit status 128
> 
> please try : 
> rfpkg --user   sagitter   clone free/lives 
> 

This command is working.

> your username seems to me that have some problem in (or with) rfpkg 
> 
> I don't remenber where is set the username 
> in /etc/rpkg/rfpkg.conf you got gitbaseurl = ssh://%(user)s@pkgs.rpmfus
> ion.org/%(module)s  
> 
> and seems to me that %(user)s is replaced with same one insane string:
> "# My FAS username# https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Infrastructure/Kerbe
> rossagitter"
>  



-- 
---
Antonio Trande
Fedora Project
mailto 'sagitter at fedoraproject dot org'
GPG key: 0x5E212EE1D35568BE
GPG key server: https://keys.fedoraproject.org/



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
___
rpmfusion-developers mailing list -- rpmfusion-developers@lists.rpmfusion.org
To unsubscribe send an email to rpmfusion-developers-le...@lists.rpmfusion.org

Re: Access to the Rpmfusion repositories

[Antonio Trande]

On 07/12/2017 09:36, Nicolas Chauvet wrote:
> 2017-12-06 22:36 GMT+01:00 Antonio Trande <anto.tra...@gmail.com>:
>> Hi all.
>>
>> I can't checkout a package's GIT module:
>>
>> $ rfpkg clone free/lives
>> Deprecation warning: kojiconfig is deprecated. Instead, kojiprofile
>> should be used.
>> Cloning into 'lives'...
>> ssh: Could not resolve hostname # my fas username# https: Name or
>> service not known
>> fatal: Could not read from remote repository.
>>
>> Please make sure you have the correct access rights
>> and the repository exists.
>> Could not execute clone: Command '['git', 'clone', 'ssh://# My FAS
>> username#
>> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Infrastructure/kerberossagit...@pkgs.rpmfusion.org/free/lives',
>> '--origin', 'origin']' returned non-zero exit status 128
> I don't understand where "# My FAS username#..." comes from ?
> Can you verify the files in /etc/rpkg/ and which fedora version and
> package you are using ?
> 


'rfpkg clone ...' does not work.

I can clone by using 'git':
git clone ssh://*username*@pkgs.rpmfusion.org/free/*package name*

Anyone else with same problem?

-- 
---
Antonio Trande
Fedora Project
mailto 'sagitter at fedoraproject dot org'
GPG key: 0x5E212EE1D35568BE
GPG key server: https://keys.fedoraproject.org/



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
___
rpmfusion-developers mailing list -- rpmfusion-developers@lists.rpmfusion.org
To unsubscribe send an email to rpmfusion-developers-le...@lists.rpmfusion.org

Re: Access to the Rpmfusion repositories

[Antonio Trande]

On 07/12/2017 09:36, Nicolas Chauvet wrote:
> 2017-12-06 22:36 GMT+01:00 Antonio Trande <anto.tra...@gmail.com>:
>> Hi all.
>>
>> I can't checkout a package's GIT module:
>>
>> $ rfpkg clone free/lives
>> Deprecation warning: kojiconfig is deprecated. Instead, kojiprofile
>> should be used.
>> Cloning into 'lives'...
>> ssh: Could not resolve hostname # my fas username# https: Name or
>> service not known
>> fatal: Could not read from remote repository.
>>
>> Please make sure you have the correct access rights
>> and the repository exists.
>> Could not execute clone: Command '['git', 'clone', 'ssh://# My FAS
>> username#
>> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Infrastructure/kerberossagit...@pkgs.rpmfusion.org/free/lives',
>> '--origin', 'origin']' returned non-zero exit status 128
> I don't understand where "# My FAS username#..." comes from ?
> Can you verify the files in /etc/rpkg/ and which fedora version and
> package you are using ?
> 

$ ll /etc/rpkg/
total 12
-rw-r--r--. 1 root root 1398  9 nov 04.31 fedpkg.conf
-rw-r--r--. 1 root root  581 12 ott 12.00 rfpkg.conf

$ cat rfpkg.conf
[rfpkg]
lookaside = http://pkgs.rpmfusion.org/repo/pkgs
lookasidehash = md5
lookaside_cgi = https://pkgs.rpmfusion.org/repo/pkgs/upload.cgi
gitbaseurl = ssh://%(user)s...@pkgs.rpmfusion.org/%(module)s
anongiturl = git://pkgs.rpmfusion.org/%(module)s
branchre = f\d$|f\d\d$|el\d$|master$
kojiconfig = /etc/koji.conf.d/rpmfusion.conf
build_client = koji-rpmfusion
clone_config =
  bz.default-tracker bugzilla.rpmfusion.org
  bz.default-product Fedora
  bz.default-version rawhide
  bz.default-component %(module)s
  sendemail.to %(module)s-ow...@rpmfusion.org
distgit_namespaced = True

$ dnf info rfpkg
Last metadata expiration check: 15:02:09 ago on mer 06 dic 2017 21:41:28
CET.
Installed Packages
Name : rfpkg
Version  : 1.25.2
Release  : 1.fc27
Arch : noarch
Size : 90 k
Source   : rfpkg-1.25.2-1.fc27.src.rpm
Repo : @System
From repo: rpmfusion-free
Summary  : RPM Fusion utility for working with dist-git
URL  : https://github.com/rpmfusion-infra/rfpkg
License  : GPLv2+
Description  : RPM Fusion utility for working with dist-git.



-- 
---
Antonio Trande
Fedora Project
mailto 'sagitter at fedoraproject dot org'
GPG key: 0x5E212EE1D35568BE
GPG key server: https://keys.fedoraproject.org/



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
___
rpmfusion-developers mailing list -- rpmfusion-developers@lists.rpmfusion.org
To unsubscribe send an email to rpmfusion-developers-le...@lists.rpmfusion.org

Access to the Rpmfusion repositories

[Antonio Trande]

Hi all.

I can't checkout a package's GIT module:

$ rfpkg clone free/lives
Deprecation warning: kojiconfig is deprecated. Instead, kojiprofile
should be used.
Cloning into 'lives'...
ssh: Could not resolve hostname # my fas username# https: Name or
service not known
fatal: Could not read from remote repository.

Please make sure you have the correct access rights
and the repository exists.
Could not execute clone: Command '['git', 'clone', 'ssh://# My FAS
username#
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Infrastructure/kerberossagit...@pkgs.rpmfusion.org/free/lives',
'--origin', 'origin']' returned non-zero exit status 128


-- 
---
Antonio Trande
Fedora Project
mailto 'sagitter at fedoraproject dot org'
GPG key: 0x5E212EE1D35568BE
GPG key server: https://keys.fedoraproject.org/



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
___
rpmfusion-developers mailing list -- rpmfusion-developers@lists.rpmfusion.org
To unsubscribe send an email to rpmfusion-developers-le...@lists.rpmfusion.org

duplicate key value violates unique constraint

[Antonio Trande]

Hi all.

What does this error mean?

: duplicate key value violates unique
constraint "rpminfo_unique_nvra"
DETAIL:  Key (name, version, release, arch,
external_repo_id)=(cmake-data, 3.9.0, 8.fc26, noarch, 38) already exists.

Build: http://koji.rpmfusion.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=154032


-- 
--
Antonio Trande
sagitter AT fedoraproject dot org
See my vCard.
<>

signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
___
rpmfusion-developers mailing list -- rpmfusion-developers@lists.rpmfusion.org
To unsubscribe send an email to rpmfusion-developers-le...@lists.rpmfusion.org

Broken dependencies (vlc,perl)

[Antonio Trande]

Hello.

Rawhide-free builds are failing for broken dependencies:

DEBUG util.py:439:  Error: nothing provides perl(:MODULE_COMPAT_5.24.1)
needed by perl-Net-SFTP-Foreign-1.87-1.fc27.noarch.
DEBUG util.py:439:  nothing provides libprotobuf-lite.so.12()(64bit)
needed by vlc-core-3.0.0-0.26snap.20170601git.fc27.ppc64le
DEBUG util.py:439:  (try to add '--allowerasing' to command line to
replace conflicting packages)

http://koji.rpmfusion.org/koji/getfile?taskID=132891=DEFAULT=root.log=-4000

Please, fix it as soon as you can.

-- 
--
Antonio Trande
sagitter AT fedoraproject dot org
See my vCard.
<>

signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
___
rpmfusion-developers mailing list -- rpmfusion-developers@lists.rpmfusion.org
To unsubscribe send an email to rpmfusion-developers-le...@lists.rpmfusion.org

Re: ffmpeg-3.2 on f25

[Antonio Trande]

On 05/11/2017 02:17 PM, Sérgio Basto wrote:
> On Thu, 2017-05-11 at 12:07 +0100, Sérgio Basto wrote:
>> Go directly to the point , I vote in update x264 and ffmpeg-3.2 in
>> F25
>> *with* mass rebuild ... we already have some package broke in F25 and
>> we already waste lots of time because ffmpeg-3.2 in not in F25 .
>> ticket
>> #4376, suggests not do it because may broke things , but they are
>> already broke . 
> 
> who vote on this (ffmpeg-3.2 on f25 ) ? we need some quorum , to
> address this to kwizart , also we may start discuss of revive Steering
> Committee

I already patched xpra-codecs-freeworld for building against ffmpeg-3.1
anyway.
I agree with Richard: all affected packages should be rebuilt offline
before to ensure all packages build at a minimum.

I have successfully rebuilt 'moc', 'xpra-codecs-freeworld' and 'lives'
on f25 against ffmpeg-3.2

+1 for me

-- 
--
Antonio Trande
sagitter AT fedoraproject dot org
See my vCard.
<>

signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
___
rpmfusion-developers mailing list -- rpmfusion-developers@lists.rpmfusion.org
To unsubscribe send an email to rpmfusion-developers-le...@lists.rpmfusion.org

ffmpeg-3.2 on f25

[Antonio Trande]

Hello.

Please, build ffmpeg-3.2 on f25 if possible.

-- 
--
Antonio Trande
sagitter AT fedoraproject dot org
See my vCard.
<>

signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
___
rpmfusion-developers mailing list -- rpmfusion-developers@lists.rpmfusion.org
To unsubscribe send an email to rpmfusion-developers-le...@lists.rpmfusion.org

Re: xpra-codecs-freeworld needs maintainer !

[Antonio Trande]

On 04/18/2017 11:48 AM, Antonio Trande wrote:
> Despite your patch for ffmpeg31, xpra still fails with following error:
> https://paste.fedoraproject.org/paste/FUA8uWN~mNELJYwEicqWaV5M1UNdIGYhyRLivL9gydE=/raw
> 

The error is not visible.
Here:
https://paste.fedoraproject.org/paste/HfxvIwfHrYW7FrcDllrZBl5M1UNdIGYhyRLivL9gydE=/raw

-- 
---
Antonio Trande
mailto: sagitter 'at' fedoraproject 'dot' org
http://fedoraos.wordpress.com/
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Sagitter
GPG Key: 0x6CE6D08A
Check on https://keys.fedoraproject.org/



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
___
rpmfusion-developers mailing list -- rpmfusion-developers@lists.rpmfusion.org
To unsubscribe send an email to rpmfusion-developers-le...@lists.rpmfusion.org

Re: xpra-codecs-freeworld needs maintainer !

[Antonio Trande]

Despite your patch for ffmpeg31, xpra still fails with following error:
https://paste.fedoraproject.org/paste/FUA8uWN~mNELJYwEicqWaV5M1UNdIGYhyRLivL9gydE=/raw

Why do you use the version 1.0.2?
It does not exist for upstream.

> On 17/04/2017 12:44, Xavier Bachelot wrote:
>> On 17/04/2017 12:27, Antonio Trande wrote:
>>> I take it.
>>>
>>> On 04/17/2017 12:18 PM, Sérgio Basto wrote:
>>>> Hello , 
>>>>
>>>> https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=4432
>>>>
>>>> Since maintainer looks like is unresponsive , I'd add someone as
>>>> maintainer of this package. 
>>>>
>>>> Thanks,
>>>>
>> I was looking at fixing the broken deps in F25 right now.
>> I guess there's no need to duplicate work on this, so here's the work in
>> progress patch to update to 1.0 to match f24 and F25, another patch will
>> be needed to update to 1.0.2 to match rawhide and f26.
>>
>> Regards,
>> Xavier
>>
> Hi Antonio,
> 
> Please take a look at the 3 attached patches.
> First two fix both building and deps issue for F25 and f24.
> Third update to 1.0.2 for F26 and Rawhide.
> 
> It's only compile tested.
> 
> Hopefully you weren't already working on this...
> 
> Regards,
> Xavier
> 

-- 
---
Antonio Trande
mailto: sagitter 'at' fedoraproject 'dot' org
http://fedoraos.wordpress.com/
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Sagitter
GPG Key: 0x6CE6D08A
Check on https://keys.fedoraproject.org/



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
___
rpmfusion-developers mailing list -- rpmfusion-developers@lists.rpmfusion.org
To unsubscribe send an email to rpmfusion-developers-le...@lists.rpmfusion.org

Re: xpra-codecs-freeworld needs maintainer !

[Antonio Trande]

Thank you very much Xavier.
I'm updating everything.

On 04/17/2017 10:24 PM, Xavier Bachelot wrote:
> On 17/04/2017 12:44, Xavier Bachelot wrote:
>> On 17/04/2017 12:27, Antonio Trande wrote:
>>> I take it.
>>>
>>> On 04/17/2017 12:18 PM, Sérgio Basto wrote:
>>>> Hello , 
>>>>
>>>> https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=4432
>>>>
>>>> Since maintainer looks like is unresponsive , I'd add someone as
>>>> maintainer of this package. 
>>>>
>>>> Thanks,
>>>>
>> I was looking at fixing the broken deps in F25 right now.
>> I guess there's no need to duplicate work on this, so here's the work in
>> progress patch to update to 1.0 to match f24 and F25, another patch will
>> be needed to update to 1.0.2 to match rawhide and f26.
>>
>> Regards,
>> Xavier
>>
> Hi Antonio,
> 
> Please take a look at the 3 attached patches.
> First two fix both building and deps issue for F25 and f24.
> Third update to 1.0.2 for F26 and Rawhide.
> 
> It's only compile tested.
> 
> Hopefully you weren't already working on this...
> 
> Regards,
> Xavier
> 

-- 
---
Antonio Trande
mailto: sagitter 'at' fedoraproject 'dot' org
http://fedoraos.wordpress.com/
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Sagitter
GPG Key: 0x6CE6D08A
Check on https://keys.fedoraproject.org/



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
___
rpmfusion-developers mailing list -- rpmfusion-developers@lists.rpmfusion.org
To unsubscribe send an email to rpmfusion-developers-le...@lists.rpmfusion.org

Re: xpra-codecs-freeworld needs maintainer !

[Antonio Trande]

I take it.

On 04/17/2017 12:18 PM, Sérgio Basto wrote:
> Hello , 
> 
> https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=4432
> 
> Since maintainer looks like is unresponsive , I'd add someone as
> maintainer of this package. 
> 
> Thanks,
> 

-- 
--
Antonio Trande
sagitter AT fedoraproject dot org
See my vCard.
<>

signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
___
rpmfusion-developers mailing list -- rpmfusion-developers@lists.rpmfusion.org
To unsubscribe send an email to rpmfusion-developers-le...@lists.rpmfusion.org

Build failure on rawhide ARM

[Antonio Trande]

Hi all.

Rawhide builds are failing on arm only with

>[Errno 2] No such file or directory: u'http://dl.fedoraproject.org
>/pub/fedora/linux/development/rawhide/Everything/armhfp/os/Packages
>/t/tar-1.29-2.fc26.armv7hl.rpm'

http://koji.rpmfusion.org/kojifiles/work/tasks/1772/51772/root.log


-- 
---
Antonio Trande
mailto: sagitter 'at' fedoraproject 'dot' org
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Sagitter
GPG Key: 0x6CE6D08A
Check on https://keys.fedoraproject.org/



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Re: As of today, MP3 decoding software is permissible in Fedora.

[Antonio Trande]

On 11/10/2016 10:11 PM, Nicolas Chauvet wrote:
> 2016-11-10 19:42 GMT+01:00 Felix Kaechele <fe...@fetzig.org>:
>> Hey guys,
>>
>> this is just in.
>>
>> See https://twitter.com/spotrh/status/796783023471656961
> 
> That's a good news for old audio files.
> From a quick review libmad, madplay mpg123 could get it, but not lame.
> Anyone to start reviewing theses into fedora ?
> 
> Thx
> 

I don't see any explicit page on Fedora Project's wiki or mailing list
(Tom Callaway's tweet apart) yet.
Or I'm wrong?

-- 
---
Antonio Trande
mailto: sagitter 'at' fedoraproject 'dot' org
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Sagitter
GPG Key: 0x6CE6D08A
Check on https://keys.fedoraproject.org/



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Re: [lives] Fix multi_encoder3 python interpreter

[Antonio Trande]

On 10/26/2016 01:02 PM, Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski wrote:
> On Tuesday, 25 October 2016 at 23:44, Antonio wrote:
>> commit 0ead6e97fd35fc2627ecacbc084aa0382dfe2272
>> Author: sagitter <sagit...@fedoraproject.org>
>> Date:   Tue Oct 25 23:43:05 2016 +0200
>>
>> Fix multi_encoder3 python interpreter
>>
>>  lives.spec | 11 ---
>>  1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
>> ---
>> diff --git a/lives.spec b/lives.spec
>> index e216f23..9964dd6 100644
>> --- a/lives.spec
>> +++ b/lives.spec
> [...]
>> @@ -143,8 +144,9 @@ rm -rf %{buildroot}%{_docdir}/lives-%{version}
>>  ##Remove rpaths
>>  chrpath -d %{buildroot}%{_bindir}/lives-exe
>>  
>> -# Fix Python2 interpreter
>> -find %{buildroot} -name 'lives_*' -o -name 'multi_encod*' | xargs sed -i 
>> '1s|^#!/usr/bin/env python|#!%{__python2}|'
>> +# Fix Python interpreter
>> +find %{buildroot} -name 'lives_*' -o -name 'multi_encoder' | xargs sed -i 
>> '1s|^#!/usr/bin/env python|#!%{__python2}|'
>> +find %{buildroot} -name 'lives_*' -o -name 'multi_encoder3' | xargs sed -i 
>> '1s|^#!/usr/bin/env python|#!%{__python3}|'
>>  
>>  ##Set Exec key
>>  desktop-file-edit \
> 
> I hope you do realize that this sets the python hashbang to python3 for
> lives_*, not just multi_encoder3. Is that intended? If yes, then what's
> the point of setting it to python2 in the line before?
> 

This commit should be correct:
https://pkgs.rpmfusion.org/cgit/free/lives.git/commit/?id=5f7db3b749699e678e4bb05b32af1e8d99e6c137

(I had totally ignored first -name option in the 'find' commands).

-- 
---
Antonio Trande
mailto: sagitter 'at' fedoraproject 'dot' org
http://fedoraos.wordpress.com/
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Sagitter
GPG Key: 0x6CE6D08A
Check on https://keys.fedoraproject.org/



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Review swap

[Antonio Trande]

Hi.

I can review in return of
http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=4258.

Any chance?


-- 
---
Antonio Trande
mailto: sagitter 'at' fedoraproject 'dot' org
http://fedoraos.wordpress.com/
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Sagitter
GPG Key: 0x6CE6D08A
Check on https://keys.fedoraproject.org/



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Unable to do scratch build on rawhide

[Antonio Trande]

Hi all.

Since 2 days at least, scratch builds on rawhide branch are impossible
because of missing downloads:

http://koji.rpmfusion.org/koji/getfile?taskID=32719=root.log=-4000
http://koji.rpmfusion.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=32719

-- 
---
Antonio Trande
mailto: sagitter 'at' fedoraproject 'dot' org
http://fedoraos.wordpress.com/
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Sagitter
GPG Key: 0x6CE6D08A
Check on https://keys.fedoraproject.org/



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Failed to retrieve glibc-2.23.90-30.fc25

[Antonio Trande]

Hi all.

f25-builds are failing for missing 'glibc' download:

Error downloading packages:
DEBUG util.py:421:glibc-2.23.90-30.fc25.i686: failed to retrieve
Packages/g/glibc-2.23.90-30.fc25.i686.rpm from build
DEBUG util.py:421:  error was [Errno 14] HTTP Error 404 - Not Found

http://koji.rpmfusion.org/kojifiles/work/tasks/8217/18217/root.log

-- 
---
Antonio Trande
mailto: sagitter 'at' fedoraproject 'dot' org
http://fedoraos.wordpress.com/
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Sagitter
GPG Key: 0x6CE6D08A
Check on https://keys.fedoraproject.org/



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

No package on updates-testing

[Antonio Trande]

Hello.

I can't install my packages (lives and moc) from
rpmfusion-free-updates-testing yet.

Should they be automatically pushed after their build or not ?

-- 
---
Antonio Trande
mailto: sagitter 'at' fedoraproject 'dot' org
http://fedoraos.wordpress.com/
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Sagitter
GPG Key: 0x6CE6D08A
Check on https://keys.fedoraproject.org/



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Re: About chromium packaging

[Antonio Trande]

chromium is under review on Fedora:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=chromium

On 07/19/2016 02:38 PM, Nicolas Chauvet wrote:
> Hello,
> 
> I've just saw that chromium was banned to RPM Fusion whislist
> http://rpmfusion.org/Wishlist
> 
> I haven't see any message from the developers mailing list where this
> has been discussed.
> To be, the only valid reason why a software can be banned from the
> repo is that it cannot be redistributed.
> 
> 

-- 
---
Antonio Trande
mailto: sagitter 'at' fedoraproject 'dot' org
http://fedoraos.wordpress.com/
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Sagitter
GPG Key: 0x6CE6D08A
Check on https://keys.fedoraproject.org/



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Updates of a package

[Antonio Trande]

Hi all.

RPMFusion/Contributors page says:

> A package built for a stable release (e.g. f24, f23) will go to the
"updates-testing" repository.

How? Manually? Or automatically?

-- 
---
Antonio Trande
mailto: sagitter 'at' fedoraproject 'dot' org
http://fedoraos.wordpress.com/
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Sagitter
GPG Key: 0x6CE6D08A
Check on https://keys.fedoraproject.org/



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Scratch builds

[Antonio Trande]

Hi.

What right way to do a scratch builds against rawhide (f25)?


-- 
---
Antonio Trande
mailto: sagitter 'at' fedoraproject 'dot' org
http://fedoraos.wordpress.com/
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Sagitter
GPG Key: 0x6CE6D08A
Check on https://keys.fedoraproject.org/



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Re: Repository access denied

[Antonio Trande]

On 07/08/2016 10:16 PM, Nicolas Chauvet wrote:
> 2016-07-08 21:37 GMT+02:00 Antonio Trande <anto.tra...@gmail.com>:
>> On 07/08/2016 09:26 PM, Nicolas Chauvet wrote:
>>> 2016-07-08 21:15 GMT+02:00 Antonio Trande <anto.tra...@gmail.com>:
>>>> Hi.
>>>>
>>>> I can't access to new repository for 'lives':
>>>>
>>>> $ rfpkg clone free/lives
>>>> Cloning into 'lives'...
>>>> Enter passphrase for key '/home/sagitter/.ssh/id_rsa':
>>>> FATAL: R any free/lives sagitter DENIED by fallthru
>>>> (or you mis-spelled the reponame)
>>>> fatal: Could not read from remote repository.
>>>>
>>>> Please make sure you have the correct access rights
>>>> and the repository exists.
>>>> Could not execute clone: Command '['git', 'clone',
>>>> 'ssh://sagit...@pkgs.rpmfusion.org/free/lives', '--origin', 'origin']'
>>>> returned non-zero exit status 128
>>>
>>> Thx, it should be fixed..
>>>
>>
>> Again, with 'rfpkg push':
>>
>> $ rfpkg push
>> Enter passphrase for key '/home/sagitter/.ssh/id_rsa':
>> FATAL: W any free/lives sagitter DENIED by fallthru
>> (or you mis-spelled the reponame)
>> fatal: Could not read from remote repository.
>>
>> Please make sure you have the correct access rights
>> and the repository exists.
>> Could not execute push: Command '['git', 'push']' returned non-zero exit
>> status 128
> Can you try again ?
> 

Looks okay now.
Thanks.

-- 
---
Antonio Trande
mailto: sagitter 'at' fedoraproject 'dot' org
http://fedoraos.wordpress.com/
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Sagitter
GPG Key: 0x6CE6D08A
Check on https://keys.fedoraproject.org/



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Re: Repository access denied

[Antonio Trande]

On 07/08/2016 09:26 PM, Nicolas Chauvet wrote:
> 2016-07-08 21:15 GMT+02:00 Antonio Trande <anto.tra...@gmail.com>:
>> Hi.
>>
>> I can't access to new repository for 'lives':
>>
>> $ rfpkg clone free/lives
>> Cloning into 'lives'...
>> Enter passphrase for key '/home/sagitter/.ssh/id_rsa':
>> FATAL: R any free/lives sagitter DENIED by fallthru
>> (or you mis-spelled the reponame)
>> fatal: Could not read from remote repository.
>>
>> Please make sure you have the correct access rights
>> and the repository exists.
>> Could not execute clone: Command '['git', 'clone',
>> 'ssh://sagit...@pkgs.rpmfusion.org/free/lives', '--origin', 'origin']'
>> returned non-zero exit status 128
> 
> Thx, it should be fixed..
> 

Again, with 'rfpkg push':

$ rfpkg push
Enter passphrase for key '/home/sagitter/.ssh/id_rsa':
FATAL: W any free/lives sagitter DENIED by fallthru
(or you mis-spelled the reponame)
fatal: Could not read from remote repository.

Please make sure you have the correct access rights
and the repository exists.
Could not execute push: Command '['git', 'push']' returned non-zero exit
status 128

-- 
---
Antonio Trande
mailto: sagitter 'at' fedoraproject 'dot' org
http://fedoraos.wordpress.com/
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Sagitter
GPG Key: 0x6CE6D08A
Check on https://keys.fedoraproject.org/



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Repository access denied

[Antonio Trande]

Hi.

I can't access to new repository for 'lives':

$ rfpkg clone free/lives
Cloning into 'lives'...
Enter passphrase for key '/home/sagitter/.ssh/id_rsa':
FATAL: R any free/lives sagitter DENIED by fallthru
(or you mis-spelled the reponame)
fatal: Could not read from remote repository.

Please make sure you have the correct access rights
and the repository exists.
Could not execute clone: Command '['git', 'clone',
'ssh://sagit...@pkgs.rpmfusion.org/free/lives', '--origin', 'origin']'
returned non-zero exit status 128

-- 
---
Antonio Trande
mailto: sagitter 'at' fedoraproject 'dot' org
http://fedoraos.wordpress.com/
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Sagitter
GPG Key: 0x6CE6D08A
Check on https://keys.fedoraproject.org/



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Re: new rfpkg 1.23.3

[Antonio Trande]

On 07/02/2016 02:44 AM, Sérgio Basto wrote:
> On Sex, 2016-07-01 at 22:08 +0200, Nicolas Chauvet wrote:
>> One note is that I've only tested with a separate account (my main
>> account has shell issue with gitolite so it does not behave normally)
>> but on a separate unix user (so I've symlinked the fedora.cert to the
>> rpmfusion.cert, I don't know if it's required).
> 
> Running /usr/bin/rpmfusion-packager-setup from rpmfusion-packager-0.5-1 
> package (last version) and follow the instructions, it setup
> certificates correctly for me . 
> rfpkg new-sources worked, for me, with new rfpkg (but still just tested
> in free repo )
> 
> About "The account has shell issue with gitolite", the most visible
> issues are branches vanish or give one server internal error (http 500)
> in cgit , seems to be some bad file permissions, but if we commit and
> push with ours account branch may back again to web view. So conclusion
> if you see one internal server error (http 500) or vanish any branch
> (in web view of cgit), you still may commit yours modifications in git
> server and eventually fix the cgit view.
> I just fix https://pkgs.rpmfusion.org/cgit/free/vcdimager.git/
> 
> Thanks and best regards, 
> 

'rfpkg build' is failed (I used 'rfpkg import srpm'):

[sagitter@localhost moc]$ rfpkg switch-branch f24
Branch f24 set up to track remote branch f24 from origin.
[sagitter@localhost moc]$ git merge master
Updating a938b1e..4a41799
Fast-forward
 .gitignore |  1 +
 moc.spec   | 62
+-
 sources|  2 +-
 3 files changed, 35 insertions(+), 30 deletions(-)
[sagitter@localhost moc]$ rfpkg push
Total 0 (delta 0), reused 0 (delta 0)
To ssh://sagit...@pkgs.rpmfusion.org/free/moc
   a938b1e..4a41799  f24 -> f24
[sagitter@localhost moc]$ rfpkg build
Building moc-2.6-0.10.alpha2.fc24 for f24-free
Created task: 5559
Task info: http://koji.rpmfusion.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=5559
Watching tasks (this may be safely interrupted)...
5559 build (f24-free,
/git/free/moc:4a4179974562295f81672340e8345d76fb75cbd3): free
5559 build (f24-free,
/git/free/moc:4a4179974562295f81672340e8345d76fb75cbd3): free -> open
(buildvm-01.online.rpmfusion.net)
5559 build (f24-free,
/git/free/moc:4a4179974562295f81672340e8345d76fb75cbd3): open
(buildvm-01.online.rpmfusion.net) -> FAILED: ActionNotAllowed: policy
violation (build_from_srpm)
  0 free  0 open  0 done  1 failed

5559 build (f24-free,
/git/free/moc:4a4179974562295f81672340e8345d76fb75cbd3) failed




-- 
---
Antonio Trande
mailto: sagitter 'at' fedoraproject 'dot' org
http://fedoraos.wordpress.com/
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Sagitter
GPG Key: 0x6CE6D08A
Check on https://keys.fedoraproject.org/



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Re: [ANNOUNCE] RPM Fusion infra is back for contributors

[Antonio Trande]

On 06/24/2016 04:19 AM, Sérgio Basto wrote:
> On Qui, 2016-06-23 at 21:48 +0200, Antonio Trande wrote:
>>
>> On 06/23/2016 05:24 AM, Sérgio Basto wrote:
>>>
>>> Kwizart, 
>>> You ask me on IRC, if I can do a scratch build and no I got an
>>> error
>>> (GenericError: invalid channel policy) 
>>>
>>>
>>> rpmfusion-koji build --scratch f24-free ./smplayer-16.6.0-
>>> 1.fc24.src.rpm 
>>> Uploading srpm: ./smplayer-16.6.0-1.fc24.src.rpm
>>> [] 100% 00:00:02   4.68
>>> MiB   1.85 MiB/sec
>>> GenericError: invalid channel policy
>>>
>>> On Qua, 2016-06-22 at 00:58 +0100, Sérgio Basto wrote:
>> Where is rpmfusion-koji command ?
>> I can't find it ..
>>
> 
> The command is one copy of /usr/bin/arm-koji , so just do : 
> 
> cp /usr/bin/arm-koji /usr/bin/rpmfusion-koji
> 
> You need rpmfusion-packager-0.5-1.fc23.noarch installed to
> have /etc/koji/rpmfusion-config and to "work".
>  
> Anyway I'll try add this to rpmfusion-packager [1] like fedora-packager 
> have the others arch-koji , I also accept pull requests :) 
> 

I obtain same error:

>>> GenericError: invalid channel policy


-- 
---
Antonio Trande
mailto: sagitter 'at' fedoraproject 'dot' org
http://fedoraos.wordpress.com/
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Sagitter
GPG Key: 0x6CE6D08A
Check on https://keys.fedoraproject.org/



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Re: [ANNOUNCE] RPM Fusion infra is back for contributors

[Antonio Trande]

On 06/23/2016 05:24 AM, Sérgio Basto wrote:
> Kwizart, 
> You ask me on IRC, if I can do a scratch build and no I got an error
> (GenericError: invalid channel policy) 
> 
> 
> rpmfusion-koji build --scratch f24-free ./smplayer-16.6.0-1.fc24.src.rpm 
> Uploading srpm: ./smplayer-16.6.0-1.fc24.src.rpm
> [] 100% 00:00:02   4.68 MiB   1.85 MiB/sec
> GenericError: invalid channel policy
> 
> On Qua, 2016-06-22 at 00:58 +0100, Sérgio Basto wrote:

Where is rpmfusion-koji command ?
I can't find it ..

-- 
---
Antonio Trande
mailto: sagitter 'at' fedoraproject 'dot' org
http://fedoraos.wordpress.com/
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Sagitter
GPG Key: 0x6CE6D08A
Check on https://keys.fedoraproject.org/



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Re: GPAC

[Antonio Trande]

On Mon, 2016-03-21 at 17:28 +0100, Przemysław Palacz wrote:
> Hey,
> 
> I can take over (k)ffmpegthumbnailer.
> I don't have time right now but I can do it during upcoming holidays 
> (easter 26-28.03).
> 
> Best regards, Przemysław Palacz

Okay, (k)ffmpegthumbnailer packages to Przemysław.
Other packages beyond GPAC ?

> 
> On 21.03.2016 17:10, Sérgio Basto wrote:
> > 
> > On Seg, 2016-03-21 at 12:38 +0100, Antonio Trande wrote:
> > > 
> > > On Mon, 2016-03-21 at 04:41 +, Sérgio Basto wrote:
> > > > 
> > > > Hi,
> > > > I'd like find someone to maintain gpac, gpac have some work to
> > > > do
> > > > (please take a look at gpac.spec). I though was one dependency
> > > > of
> > > > x624/ffmpeg , but no, is a huge project in multimedia ...
> > > > 
> > > > Best regards
> > > Hi Sergio.
> > > 
> > > Let me see what I can do with gpac.
> > Hello Antonio, if I can choose , I prefer that you begin by take a
> > look
> > in ffmpegthumbnailer and kffmpegthumbnailer:
> > https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=3484
> > https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=3719
> > https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=3929
> > 
> > At https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=3484#c5 ,
> > I propose make kffmpegthumbnailer as a sub package of
> > ffmpegthumbnailer
> > 
> > This package should be much more easy.
> > 
> > Thanks,
-- 
---
Antonio Trande

mailto: sagitter 'at' fedoraproject 'dot' org
http://fedoraos.wordpress.com/
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Sagitter
GPG Key: 0x6CE6D08A
Check on https://keys.fedoraproject.org/


signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part

Re: GPAC

[Antonio Trande]

On Mon, 2016-03-21 at 04:41 +, Sérgio Basto wrote:
> Hi, 
> I'd like find someone to maintain gpac, gpac have some work to do
> (please take a look at gpac.spec). I though was one dependency of
> x624/ffmpeg , but no, is a huge project in multimedia ...
> 
> Best regards

Hi Sergio.

Let me see what I can do with gpac.

-- 
---
Antonio Trande

mailto: sagitter 'at' fedoraproject 'dot' org
http://fedoraos.wordpress.com/
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Sagitter
GPG Key: 0x6CE6D08A
Check on https://keys.fedoraproject.org/


signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part

Re: Package assignment

[Antonio Trande]

On Tue, 2016-03-01 at 18:57 +0100, Göran Uddeborg wrote:
> Sérgio Basto:
> > 
> > Well bugzilla have good tools to search and you can save the
> > searches.
> Sure, but if possible I prefer to get an interrupt when things
> happen,
> rather than having to poll. :-)
> 
> > 
> > Last but not least, do you approve the update (as the maintainer of
> > the
> > package) ? 
> > https://github.com/rpmfusion/mythtv-status/commit/b51e05c76bcb2ad82
> > e3c0
> > 787d5bc4d53a931d674
> Reading a patch of a patch was an interesting experience.  :-)
> Overall, it looks fine.  I have two comments:
> 
> 1. The comment "Add mythtv status to end of stub" in
> mythtv-update-motd that previously existed in the patch could have
> been left in.  No big deal, though.
> 
> 2. Why is it necessary to throw away standard error of the
> mythtv-status command in mythtv-update-motd?  It isn't new in this
> version, but the line is modified so I noted.  (Maybe that is more a
> question for Susi Lehtola.  Cc:ing explicitly in case no longer a
> subscriber.)

'mythtv-status' package has been updated by me; if something is not
good (and probably there is something), original maintainer/s of
package, temporarily busy with other business, should kindly at least
check all changes before definitive approval.

As provisional maintainer, I (or Sergio) cannot be familiar with all
packages and know how they work. Collaboration is essential.

-- 
---
Antonio Trande

mailto: sagitter 'at' fedoraproject 'dot' org
http://fedoraos.wordpress.com/
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Sagitter
GPG Key: 0x6CE6D08A
Check on https://keys.fedoraproject.org/


signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part

Re: some packages to be updated

[Antonio Trande]

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256

On 02/24/2016 06:44 PM, Sérgio Basto wrote:
> On Qua, 2016-02-24 at 12:40 +0100, Antonio Trande wrote:
>> On 02/23/2016 09:57 PM, Sérgio Basto wrote:
>>> Hello, I'd like update :
>>> 
>>> ffmpegthumbnailer and kffmpegthumbnailer: 
>>> https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=3484 
>>> https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=3719 
>>> https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=3929
>>> 
>>> transcode with all Debian patches , which come from archlinux
>>> , which come from yet another distro (I don't remember now) : 
>>> https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=3407
>>> 
>>> lxdvdrip  to version 1.77 : 
>>> https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=3976
>>> 
>>> Update to miro 6.0: 
>>> https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2815
>>> 
>>> trasnap: https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=3739
>>> 
>>> assaultcube:
>>> https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=3773
>>> 
>>> tivodecode:
>>> https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2612
>>> 
>>> minitube: https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=3552
>>> 
>>> Update mythtv-status to 0.10.4 
>>> https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=3594
>>> 
>>> and I think is not all , but if someone think that we can
>>> retired someone of them because they already have replacement
>>> or another reason , please speak up .
>>> 
>>> And of course , if someone want contribute, please read : 
>>> http://rpmfusion.org/Contributors_github , i.e. do a pull
>>> request.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Thanks,
>>> 
>> 
>> Like I said some time ago, the packages not rebuilt by time need
>> a recompilation at least; please, do your better to get improved
>> all RPM Fusion packages as much as possible.
>> 
>> @Sergio If some RPM Fusion packagers are missing, please let me
>> know, I can update their packages.
> 
> All people have been notified , via bugzilla , sometimes more than 
> once, so, I think, we are free to pick a package and update it ,
> if it is worth, and then propose it to be retired , this only way,
> IMO , to have things organized .
> 

What's the situation of 'mame', 'gmameui' stuff?

> BTW:  oxine FTBFS on F23 
> https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=3889
> 


- -- 
Antonio Trande

mailto: sagitter 'at' fedoraproject 'dot' org
http://fedoraos.wordpress.com/
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Sagitter
GPG Key: 0x6CE6D08A
Check on https://keys.fedoraproject.org/
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v2

iQEcBAEBCAAGBQJWze+xAAoJELbsjn1s5tCKMXEH/3KEsRq3NRgRaia8+KX7vtNQ
4znQxzDFYKvsWPeC2x4oiY73Er6qS7iv40yRWwHCEs/sqgcBngrp2YIEPOSa3IaT
Sf09Sgz9HmfNJf0KWkEgXWs0xlnFmiwPbyAnX7F6spdu+pV+HTnu0AQmliHNLjcn
KjyNE48TH0b67qKW9Y+s7PN4L+Qx9orPbOLHWWCXceQcbJWIoS/nxa3fukMletrr
12N8uWcEoRyHF9oEv7bCLK44q0CAe+daNiLMNFwosaVh4AQZN9Cu0RCqrE6lPzfq
eAWgQaM/3LY49HlvZM1xR3WF8FUsXBd+Jpb19/nKkmjZ7mpbQxt9wEnd3ia2dMI=
=JTxk
-END PGP SIGNATURE-

Re: some packages to be updated

[Antonio Trande]

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256

On 02/23/2016 09:57 PM, Sérgio Basto wrote:
> Hello, I'd like update :
> 
> ffmpegthumbnailer and kffmpegthumbnailer: 
> https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=3484 
> https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=3719 
> https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=3929
> 
> transcode with all Debian patches , which come from archlinux ,
> which come from yet another distro (I don't remember now) : 
> https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=3407
> 
> lxdvdrip  to version 1.77 : 
> https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=3976
> 
> Update to miro 6.0: 
> https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2815
> 
> trasnap: https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=3739
> 
> assaultcube: https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=3773
> 
> tivodecode: https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2612
> 
> minitube: https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=3552
> 
> Update mythtv-status to 0.10.4 
> https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=3594
> 
> and I think is not all , but if someone think that we can retired 
> someone of them because they already have replacement or another
> reason , please speak up .
> 
> And of course , if someone want contribute, please read : 
> http://rpmfusion.org/Contributors_github , i.e. do a pull request.
> 
> 
> Thanks,
> 

Like I said some time ago, the packages not rebuilt by time need a
recompilation at least; please, do your better to get improved all RPM
Fusion packages as much as possible.

@Sergio
If some RPM Fusion packagers are missing, please let me know, I can
update their packages.

- -- 
Antonio Trande

mailto: sagitter 'at' fedoraproject 'dot' org
http://fedoraos.wordpress.com/
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Sagitter
GPG Key: 0x6CE6D08A
Check on https://keys.fedoraproject.org/
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v2

iQEcBAEBCAAGBQJWzZamAAoJELbsjn1s5tCKznAH/iCorFOo3UxKFDA/G/pUsXbB
KPCRQwzpKehYpdlVlbgiVAPMpEilh/nLOpRs2fY/4wYnPcpV7+NI44poVMENEXEF
t6faH/RNXt42bHBbwuNNk10RxC5oHxuxUXLT+W4rhP1GzDx63qAp3mNNxEaoBbkK
RYwNOO1tHCI2KIdvITEDQQIR11nSt3sdLuDW6W00aZK++BT/sDOOUZXS/iY6LsdH
MaBotSx/sMbJ36CY2Cy8c52q6eIMqJ/+XwGyOP0+AJaMKImTvnWBvnNm3H4QyH8X
epRpO0vLuzKnzFSFaKdiqxGosTMhkKloEpsdeI2HKyPL8b16tOcaSIN7BRKMNEY=
=32Eq
-END PGP SIGNATURE-

Re: libraries missing on F22 and higher

[Antonio Trande]

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256

Note that is not just a fc? vs fc23 issue; just for example:

1) Which RPMFusion packages use %license?
(http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:LicensingGuidelines#License_Text)

$ repoquery -f /usr/share/licenses/* --disablerepo=fedora,updates
- --enablerepo=rpmfusion-free-updates-testing

or

$ repoquery -f /usr/share/licenses/* --disablerepo=fedora,updates
- --enablerepo=rpmfusion-free

And which ones push a COPYING in a bad directory?

$ repoquery -f /usr/share/doc/*/COPYING* --disablerepo=fedora,updates
- --enablerepo=rpmfusion-free


2) Which RPMFusion packages are **rebuilt** by including hardening flags?
(http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Compiler_flags
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/Harden_All_Packages)
   Just for example I chosen that most famous:

$ rpm -qa ffmpeg
ffmpeg-2.8.3-1.fc23.x86_64

(Good! It has been rebuilt for F23)

$ rpm -q --list ffmpeg | grep bin
/usr/bin/ffmpeg
/usr/bin/ffplay
/usr/bin/ffprobe
/usr/bin/ffserver
/usr/bin/qt-faststart

# checksec --file /usr/bin/ffmpeg

Ops! 'Partial RELRO' and 'No PIE' warnings

$ rpm -qa ffmpeg-compat
ffmpeg-compat-0.6.7-9.fc23.x86_64

(Ops! Still fc22 but okay, it's working)

$ rpm -q --list ffmpeg | grep COPYING
/usr/share/doc/ffmpeg/COPYING.GPLv2
/usr/share/doc/ffmpeg/COPYING.GPLv3
/usr/share/doc/ffmpeg/COPYING.LGPLv2.1
/usr/share/doc/ffmpeg/COPYING.LGPLv3

(Ops! Packaging rules violation)

$ rpm -q --list ffmpeg-compat | grep lib
/usr/lib64/libavcodec.so.52
/usr/lib64/libavcodec.so.52.72.2
/usr/lib64/libavdevice.so.52
/usr/lib64/libavdevice.so.52.2.0
/usr/lib64/libavfilter.so.1
/usr/lib64/libavfilter.so.1.19.0
/usr/lib64/libavformat.so.52
/usr/lib64/libavformat.so.52.64.2
/usr/lib64/libavutil.so.50
/usr/lib64/libavutil.so.50.15.1
/usr/lib64/libpostproc.so.51
/usr/lib64/libpostproc.so.51.2.0
/usr/lib64/libswscale.so.0
/usr/lib64/libswscale.so.0.11.0

# checksec --file /usr/lib64/libavcodec.so.52.72.2
Ops! 'Partial RELRO' warning

Therefore, am I exagerrating? Okay, but please don't tell me that ALL
RPMFusion packages respect packaging guidelines of Fedora.


- -- 
Antonio Trande

mailto: sagitter 'at' fedoraproject 'dot' org
http://fedoraos.wordpress.com/
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Sagitter
GPG Key: 0x565E653C
Check on https://keys.fedoraproject.org/
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v2

iQEcBAEBCAAGBQJWhRoTAAoJEF5tK7VWXmU8iswH/0b1wEDOAlKW10xYt5rhwq2R
41irVEf/VMbB8wARDDWLXVxlWAeVy/NEcKcQfVaHYYets1zZyykyXXIgNej2kM2L
2SQBWiAfIzTncVO9nEkjlpKmfWLbDgzM2T75gq8ifC0yi7ZZttv3qmLyLDuLWF57
0oiLDEtlIF9MkWixxfCVnOVKq5w2vGE8GzimhYxVv7x6YHHEuGny4dMTL9K80rxv
RxJQ/lDIrQAuIc4+i/wW64g0sISIVYVPevxwFXTsprpALrorOCTTsapA0xUwq5rf
yMiSfOM6mcU2tq5ywg4YKivtaqlAXlg0+4wGAolzMUznI9C97K8/PZQpurZOpeY=
=1u9b
-END PGP SIGNATURE-

Re: libraries missing on F22 and higher

[Antonio Trande]

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256

On 12/31/2015 11:58 AM, Karel Volný wrote:
> 
> Hi,
> 
> ...
>> - Fedora packages must carry the current release %dist.
> 
> just out of curiousity, where is this written?

http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:DistTag

> 
> grepping https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines for
> "dist", I cannot find (but my eyes are tired ...) a mention that
> it _must_ be even included?
> 
> I'm asking because of the situation with UFO:AI (that I happen to 
> maintain ...) where the -data subpackage is shared across releases
> to save resources, so how much does this exception violate the
> policies ...?
> 
> K.
> 

- -- 
Antonio Trande

mailto: sagitter 'at' fedoraproject 'dot' org
http://fedoraos.wordpress.com/
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Sagitter
GPG Key: 0x565E653C
Check on https://keys.fedoraproject.org/
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v2

iQEcBAEBCAAGBQJWhQz2AAoJEF5tK7VWXmU8ZsEH/3VjQeeX321Kv4dkGp0h/ec/
q2xEa8PcIA4Ns8vTbMl69m0jJAAbmlomiBxjbhLwzRkz9kNIzmLsptW/Tnao7CMZ
TAJllLrt3nd2E8Z3hwqiJbGkQ6fae92SMC0DHUXSDyWlA1Wz70jVeUjE3uneER6/
S/mbeOC7enXm2axPaX4ft9NUMU72wUVrziS9tfpqzNOkiXZe+PhG1iv1flAZL5hZ
0XzgZgsVXGVNdQ5jAwnQa4yFxoUrBznSykAACEZV1RQSTsJ9Ei6XtAK/p//reGFA
iloEe1NSD42AWEWPTA0c540bJxPxyMOElb97GiLrRJ34V24BatnwFzS9mVI+8Fs=
=+fD6
-END PGP SIGNATURE-

Re: libraries missing on F22 and higher

[Antonio Trande]

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256

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

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

- -- 
Antonio Trande

mailto: sagitter 'at' fedoraproject 'dot' org
http://fedoraos.wordpress.com/
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Sagitter
GPG Key: 0x565E653C
Check on https://keys.fedoraproject.org/
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v2

iQEcBAEBCAAGBQJWgWdxAAoJEF5tK7VWXmU8C+EH/3u88qQ6FMAq0VMnyWmTasez
opEEZ/CnK/cKpkBRrOwOjtQiyxsrEIQRNHxTVRoqh37+XkyPNU27n5dNdJyY/1MW
p31LnTCmYPYQ+2eG8vw9CAtK/pyiTILviPmGF9FWYmiLdFbpYzh4+cKFjU5oo5KL
+RDgm3pcEvQjcE2GAC7N/vC+aZOxJndFkNVqYIO8SPBmvLq4y9F07xuXAQVI/Xuu
DV7mfgZR1msdWzskrkL2Ao2tUFS3km9pm9MvXhH5YJvVfczHW0TfVfBfkmlKzpoV
P6UVLvyfhXP4RJq71w8Qn1P6oCDydYR+EbgHF39C5KYFd0qlI5EYGlYfZ2EpOxg=
=DgFz
-END PGP SIGNATURE-

Re: libraries missing on F22 and higher

[Antonio Trande]

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256

On 12/27/2015 09:04 AM, Tomasz Torcz wrote:
> On Sun, Dec 27, 2015 at 01:48:23AM +0100, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
>> On 12/27/2015 01:11 AM, Sérgio Basto wrote:
>> 
>>>> Also, RPMFusion respects Fedora packaging guidelines or not?
>>> 
>>> yes we do
>> 
>> Aparently RPMFusion does not repect the FPG. Packages complying
>> to the FPG are supposed to have been rebuilt for f23 and
>> therefore to carry a package suffix of ".f23".
> 
> Not really. There are often mass rebuild during Fedora
> development, caused by various reasons: new GCC, change of default
> compiler flags, hardening etc.  But mass rebuild is not required
> for every Fedora release.
> 

At last someone comprehends what I meant.
Beyond .fc suffix (that could create confusion during Fedora upgrade
however), here you're saying that RPMFusion packages must not be
audited periodically, even for months, it's enough they work.

I ask again, how can we know if a package .fc(x) compiles/works fine
on Fedora(x+n) without a rebuild?

- -- 
Antonio Trande

mailto: sagitter 'at' fedoraproject 'dot' org
http://fedoraos.wordpress.com/
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Sagitter
GPG Key: 0x565E653C
Check on https://keys.fedoraproject.org/
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v2

iQEcBAEBCAAGBQJWf8KsAAoJEF5tK7VWXmU8RLcH/igoXg+afHUXBY4SJVwL7VN5
6NIh73qWm63TnMOqeUh4lsVEEety1WoiYfyirDRD05H08SGZCfdv5/1hK4wsX0XP
a19Ul1ZAdcxOnwPDlYgHMh27x2k6NYFCcRdyqaKavU4eUiJXjeLSpdREavy01cs2
axa1V7haS5CrWojDDkXiJgCAIwKzOS1OWuJxhM2y3gfZojJDJ4yhXAPoh9ECR3wc
d8Jyxd7IpYT6R6GpkJg/xyJbIwb3AMPv2jPQuMLtFRPpG/geU9zwh9bLf0HPSlY+
wTLMFN1fxnJyKcB/q53ZNVNhakxTwwGr1Xr39+E9kMUyhbZhwNbK3KU2DMQ4gqw=
=etVC
-END PGP SIGNATURE-

Re: libraries missing on F22 and higher

[Antonio Trande]

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256

On 12/27/2015 12:26 AM, Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski wrote:
> On Thursday, 24 December 2015 at 11:02, Antonio Trande wrote:
>> On 12/24/2015 12:32 AM, S�rgio Basto wrote:
>>> On Qua, 2015-12-23 at 22:20 +0100, Antonio Trande wrote:
>>>> On 12/23/2015 09:51 PM, Nicolas Chauvet wrote:
>>>>> 2015-12-22 20:31 GMT+01:00 Antonio Trande 
>>>>> <anto.tra...@gmail.com <mailto:anto.tra...@gmail.com>>:
>>>>> 
>>>>> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA256
>>>>> 
>>>>> Hi all,
>>>>> 
>>>>> these libraries (and others probably) are not available yet
>>>>> on Fedora 22 and devel branch. Please, require a rebuild 
>>>>> (https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=3821) as
>>>>> soon as possible:
>>>>> 
>>>>> faad2 libmpeg2 libdca twolame
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> All of them are actually available, please double check
>>>>> your system.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Nicolas (kwizart)
>>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> Hi Nicolas,
>>>> 
>>>> are available as fc23 packages?
>>> 
>>> no , they are available as fc22 in F23
>>> 
>> 
>> Honestly, I don't understand how we can tolerate something like
>> that, that is using on Fedora 23 some packages built on Fedora
>> 22; is there not any dependency issue?
> 
> No. RPM doesn't care about disttag for dependencies unless you
> actually specify a dependency using it, e.g.: Requires: foo =
> 1.1-2.fc23
> 
> As long as SONAMEs match (or actually, as long as Provides: match),
> the dependencies are satisfied. There's nothing wrong with having
> .fc22 packages in F23+ repos.
> 

In 'faad2' case or some other case, yes for now.
How do you know if a .fc22 package works fine on Fedora 23 if you
don't rebuild?

Also, RPMFusion respects Fedora packaging guidelines or not? Are you
sure that in the meantime a package don't need any other changes like
License packaging, dependency between sub-packages, or any minor fixes?

Regards.

- -- 
Antonio Trande

mailto: sagitter 'at' fedoraproject 'dot' org
http://fedoraos.wordpress.com/
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Sagitter
GPG Key: 0x565E653C
Check on https://keys.fedoraproject.org/
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v2

iQEcBAEBCAAGBQJWfydSAAoJEF5tK7VWXmU8/NQIAKrVRStGTdPm4xgWtpFp5C5w
eFtbhUnRqBnQ+oxEotuGFt1oyoqa5BYHWaoJ5XdY21hXFfP6v2H9BywTV3MN/07B
itdx95emAvm9m5cNfi/Ft10qu00n1Ygm9h9w5dPsZvCSrnsNhL4sA+h9FTkqpR5E
hHW5aLsPbjSqMEoLi+1H+g65JRWzEdknTAKB6pUpY1UIQEzF+as8VvHyJL/LlN1K
0If8cy96R0ksPGsBZPY/+P5MB/4Mk4sQSywVXLO13zhClmY86QHwMFFozoACfe/4
MY7jfdZk5QptKWJFwJp5S/ukAWdB4TeIwvquCe66VAjpRsp2j6quBHcr0BKK2ak=
=KrN/
-END PGP SIGNATURE-

Re: libraries missing on F22 and higher

[Antonio Trande]

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256

On 12/24/2015 12:32 AM, Sérgio Basto wrote:
> On Qua, 2015-12-23 at 22:20 +0100, Antonio Trande wrote:
>> On 12/23/2015 09:51 PM, Nicolas Chauvet wrote:
>>> 2015-12-22 20:31 GMT+01:00 Antonio Trande
>>> <anto.tra...@gmail.com <mailto:anto.tra...@gmail.com>>:
>>> 
>>> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA256
>>> 
>>> Hi all,
>>> 
>>> these libraries (and others probably) are not available yet on 
>>> Fedora 22 and devel branch. Please, require a rebuild 
>>> (https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=3821) as soon
>>> as possible:
>>> 
>>> faad2 libmpeg2 libdca twolame
>>> 
>>> 
>>> All of them are actually available, please double check your 
>>> system.
>>> 
>>> Nicolas (kwizart)
>>> 
>> 
>> Hi Nicolas,
>> 
>> are available as fc23 packages?
> 
> no , they are available as fc22 in F23
> 

Honestly, I don't understand how we can tolerate something like that,
that is using on Fedora 23 some packages built on Fedora 22; is there
not any dependency issue?

- -- 
Antonio Trande

mailto: sagitter 'at' fedoraproject 'dot' org
http://fedoraos.wordpress.com/
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Sagitter
GPG Key: 0x565E653C
Check on https://keys.fedoraproject.org/
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v2

iQEcBAEBCAAGBQJWe8KdAAoJEF5tK7VWXmU8oJMH/RwTV31K5HhtXZ+4vgFT4lsA
AMpIxh0irWE1RiQyo8dvT1mRxSe2CoLBRZD/lPje52zqPTZD3AGIjNfRkhfdV/JO
9ATkoaRuEwdBE2WYjugZwtDrtF/KPgQy5bZSbZYruxAXKYbkepE3Y4JFLQ5TW5TL
Vz21Ef8EVvq3rIdmRAj9glVKYkGU1pd+zuxQg+7edM3t6l56WxGSXQm48O8MVVVy
xebHI2XHizRrBQsBkQvcY0PySmrA1rleXD5GiPL7+o20Co2cOHOlCn38fNbBre45
Nhaz1IrAx4ynSetmR2y92Zn3gIGFT/8DrzddSWcg0ssnGVybqK7Y/1wuH/rxM4A=
=ptLS
-END PGP SIGNATURE-

Re: libraries missing on F22 and higher

[Antonio Trande]

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256

On 12/23/2015 09:51 PM, Nicolas Chauvet wrote:
> 2015-12-22 20:31 GMT+01:00 Antonio Trande <anto.tra...@gmail.com 
> <mailto:anto.tra...@gmail.com>>:
> 
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA256
> 
> Hi all,
> 
> these libraries (and others probably) are not available yet on
> Fedora 22 and devel branch. Please, require a rebuild 
> (https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=3821) as soon as 
> possible:
> 
> faad2 libmpeg2 libdca twolame
> 
> 
> All of them are actually available, please double check your
> system.
> 
> Nicolas (kwizart)
> 

Hi Nicolas,

are available as fc23 packages?

- -- 
Antonio Trande

mailto: sagitter 'at' fedoraproject 'dot' org
http://fedoraos.wordpress.com/
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Sagitter
GPG Key: 0x565E653C
Check on https://keys.fedoraproject.org/
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v2

iQEcBAEBCAAGBQJWexAtAAoJEF5tK7VWXmU8lUIH/1Es7u0fSU+GAtJs6hKTEDWw
nslrJpA7/7u1t0Lcy5lHYAC7Rm3AanudadcE+i4e6HUTRuXkRu3vGMPiU7jP87xR
hTprujoQlbEE6Xp9kaPwcAF9dkT3puMhUj5n0NZbKKWCr9bXFM8k2lJnnL1vCLWV
ybqVKt5mCRIWWJZn2qZ4AAS+6Z1a8LyQsU+X+/b/3EyEWr528IrzSFY4Hr60Psnp
BWu2bv7dIvboznlOmLiJhRd7cf1TtCc0R/iMVXysXKojnD2vj2U1GBehMltyvi+4
e23v3BBl8UIshsxtgWb+O+FapBGp2iGz4TomqqwMLBHGcjm/bmbAZ6XULZd9VFs=
=Ix0U
-END PGP SIGNATURE-

Re: libraries missing on F22 and higher

[Antonio Trande]

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256

On 12/22/2015 10:40 PM, Sérgio Basto wrote:
> On Ter, 2015-12-22 at 21:00 +0100, Antonio Trande wrote:
>> On 12/22/2015 08:47 PM, Sérgio Basto wrote:
>>> Hello
>>> 
>>> On Ter, 2015-12-22 at 20:31 +0100, Antonio Trande wrote:
>>>> Hi all,
>>>> 
>>>> these libraries (and others probably) are not available yet
>>>> on Fedora 22 and devel branch. Please, require a rebuild 
>>>> (https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=3821) as soon
>>>> as poss ible:
>>>> 
>>>> faad2 libmpeg2 libdca twolame
>>> 
>>> They are available in F23 at least :
>>> 
>>> dnf repoquery  --qf "%{sourcerpm} %{arch} %{repoid}" faad2 
>>> libmpeg2 libdca twolame | grep -v System
>>> 
>>> faad2-2.7-6.fc22.src.rpm i686 rpmfusion-free 
>>> faad2-2.7-6.fc22.src.rpm x86_64 rpmfusion-free 
>>> libdca-0.0.5-9.fc22.src.rpm i686 rpmfusion-free 
>>> libdca-0.0.5-9.fc22.src.rpm x86_64 rpmfusion-free 
>>> libmpeg2-0.5.1-11.fc22.src.rpm i686 rpmfusion-free 
>>> libmpeg2-0.5.1-11.fc22.src.rpm x86_64 rpmfusion-free 
>>> twolame-0.3.13-4.fc22.src.rpm i686 rpmfusion-free 
>>> twolame-0.3.13-4.fc22.src.rpm x86_64 rpmfusion-free
>>> 
>> 
>> fc22 ?
>> 
>> Have you done an upgrade of Fedora? Or, does RPMFusion for F23
>> provide mixed packages?
> 
> Yes , sort of , when we rebuild the package it get fc23 tag , but
> those packages don't got rebuild so stay with f22 , it is common
> happens this

Okay; I think they should be rebuilt anyway though.

> . Fedora have done a mass rebuild for all packages for this release
> so all packages should have fc23 tag but is an exception .
> 

- -- 
Antonio Trande

mailto: sagitter 'at' fedoraproject 'dot' org
http://fedoraos.wordpress.com/
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Sagitter
GPG Key: 0x565E653C
Check on https://keys.fedoraproject.org/
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v2

iQEcBAEBCAAGBQJWeoGUAAoJEF5tK7VWXmU8V+IIAK88ICAwU93i76+vtaHNXmrc
b4PBEBq8DEvkhs9GgJt+W+qgO3i5C5ECLPYogXHDwpQhRpcbKJ/UPzwAgWHDh8tS
ep0LZlarTZjsS+EEmE6fbRuFOSC36PkdIDUST7qjLD3J6kOSh/RaSLKBKITtlG0I
yVhHpxoS5fWfQJGJp/B7DDf2Cce10z2iXx8dac4AKIPCiHwFf+thgeNNDe5YKsaT
C2KxQmdAwjYcploWCcgyBeYiYJTyeABNcLkkz3cZcBMp+6BWKwl4CWjyir+oTe2y
mRyk1QKZSUZxmICMyx8yr86ptS4xM35VKO+Mmk4OfjiEf9/jRuLJyYlk36RCxLI=
=72Ad
-END PGP SIGNATURE-

Re: libraries missing on F22 and higher

[Antonio Trande]

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256

On 12/22/2015 08:47 PM, Sérgio Basto wrote:
> Hello
> 
> On Ter, 2015-12-22 at 20:31 +0100, Antonio Trande wrote:
>> Hi all,
>> 
>> these libraries (and others probably) are not available yet on
>> Fedora 22 and devel branch. Please, require a rebuild 
>> (https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=3821) as soon as
>> poss ible:
>> 
>> faad2 libmpeg2 libdca twolame
> 
> They are available in F23 at least :
> 
> dnf repoquery  --qf "%{sourcerpm} %{arch} %{repoid}" faad2
> libmpeg2 libdca twolame | grep -v System
> 
> faad2-2.7-6.fc22.src.rpm i686 rpmfusion-free 
> faad2-2.7-6.fc22.src.rpm x86_64 rpmfusion-free 
> libdca-0.0.5-9.fc22.src.rpm i686 rpmfusion-free 
> libdca-0.0.5-9.fc22.src.rpm x86_64 rpmfusion-free 
> libmpeg2-0.5.1-11.fc22.src.rpm i686 rpmfusion-free 
> libmpeg2-0.5.1-11.fc22.src.rpm x86_64 rpmfusion-free 
> twolame-0.3.13-4.fc22.src.rpm i686 rpmfusion-free 
> twolame-0.3.13-4.fc22.src.rpm x86_64 rpmfusion-free
> 

fc22 ?

Have you done an upgrade of Fedora?
Or, does RPMFusion for F23 provide mixed packages?

- -- 
Antonio Trande

mailto: sagitter 'at' fedoraproject 'dot' org
http://fedoraos.wordpress.com/
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Sagitter
GPG Key: 0x565E653C
Check on https://keys.fedoraproject.org/
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v2

iQEcBAEBCAAGBQJWeau7AAoJEF5tK7VWXmU81BgH/3ADJIGGA1ysbtfl2G2RYHzs
VemsOWTx58+peKftRLk/Fy0f8gUmrDgziQGPEjqbnbKzSk7QgX9uFE7Fg+ysUzdY
v9qO8FdTKmHTNQWUzMKjKeWG9m5vBkY/lJ4vBB0oZEg7JeT5B52usTC5xKqSqwkj
g16ydBD+9BLDpOroUEUXiNQ5nukPQBARFXudAAfSFfJ0vC+L4Sr5a5w2Zd3OXO/O
4yfdxdZ6nmEih7oVOfc+4rDBfDNIJqYz5zGTc4b4FYZmpRcdmJN8L5e496oZ1ZDd
2Htvv9ujjKTyfN6UKIz9vbQhEse9G9fgD3DA0/xhHDV8aTQFctmG6WFqe4iX5a4=
=4YrH
-END PGP SIGNATURE-

libraries missing on F22 and higher

[Antonio Trande]

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256

Hi all,

these libraries (and others probably) are not available yet on Fedora
22 and devel branch.
Please, require a rebuild
(https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=3821) as soon as possible:

faad2
libmpeg2
libdca
twolame

Thanks.

- -- 
Antonio Trande

mailto: sagitter 'at' fedoraproject 'dot' org
http://fedoraos.wordpress.com/
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Sagitter
GPG Key: 0x565E653C
Check on https://keys.fedoraproject.org/
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v2

iQEcBAEBCAAGBQJWeaUBAAoJEF5tK7VWXmU88y4H/2+50Ep+GNYuOU/yafnYgRyJ
1q1lM0uOGq9ladoXWsQGhp9BM6+3aS1d04TJcK39/U4pl4gy+h93Fv0687/dXoVW
zJVZ93mwkH/GMwipPrLnHQ9WX8FHgMewbHdgb7F5TCfdk+yEY7uIRCWFKDPXVNg7
vctqAb5M8EI7+NwWcKrCdF6Bzy2ND1mnJIrk79nDGP/c3p6CjNKACFEV0ZddE9Jt
DAyRH9IBdAxoth0tm93KKQJtXokQx9iHqtqwd0YrMmXWJJhSFyBDiy89viWtKd+p
1KbMYMvuT1eaamNL8JitW9VfVbfdNG4WrJDrMISaTcszWKIMPAeQG4FiCKeJOuI=
=zQDP
-END PGP SIGNATURE-