Re: package request, Denied: Bad request

[Ben Rosser]

On Mon, Apr 30, 2018 at 11:34 AM, Richard Shaw  wrote:
> I don't do pkgdb requests all the time and I missed the namespace too on my
> last one. Perhaps it should be blank instead of showing "rpm" and require an
> entry of "free" or "nonfree" before allowing the request to continue.

Yeah, I've definitely screwed this up too. It would be really nice if
we could get rid of the "rpms" namespace from pkgdb.

That being said, I imagine pkgdb2 is un-maintained now. that Fedora's
dropped it.. is RPM Fusion the only place still using it downstream of
Fedora?

Ben
___
rpmfusion-developers mailing list -- rpmfusion-developers@lists.rpmfusion.org
To unsubscribe send an email to rpmfusion-developers-le...@lists.rpmfusion.org

Re: Login to pkgdb broken?

[Ben Rosser]

On Tue, Feb 20, 2018 at 12:35 PM, Sérgio Basto <ser...@serjux.com> wrote:
>
> yes , I notice that is broken a week or two ago
>
> I will send news when it fixed , but is not a priority
>
> Thanks for the report.

Okay, good to know. What should I do to request new packages in the
mean time? It would be nice to not have to wait, if possible.

(In particular, https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=4639
was just approved a few days ago and I'd like to go ahead and import
the package).

Ben Rosser
___
rpmfusion-developers mailing list -- rpmfusion-developers@lists.rpmfusion.org
To unsubscribe send an email to rpmfusion-developers-le...@lists.rpmfusion.org

Login to pkgdb broken?

[Ben Rosser]

Hello all,

Something seems to be wrong with RPM Fusion's pkgdb instance. When I
attempt to log in through the web interface, after the page attempts
to load I just get redirected to the following URL with a message that
says "discoveryfailure":

https://admin.rpmfusion.org/pkgdb/login/?next=http://admin.rpmfusion.org/pkgdb/

This seems to be happening in both Chromium and Firefox.

Is this a known issue? Can anyone else confirm the problem?

Ben Rosser
___
rpmfusion-developers mailing list -- rpmfusion-developers@lists.rpmfusion.org
To unsubscribe send an email to rpmfusion-developers-le...@lists.rpmfusion.org

Re: when running a fedora-review of a rpmfusion package, the review.log is always empty.

[Ben Rosser]

On Wed, Oct 18, 2017 at 7:57 AM, Sérgio Basto <ser...@serjux.com> wrote:
> Hi,
> have you any clue , I got the same problem with review-kodi-
> visualization-spectrum ...
> and even [1] fails with exception down the road
>
> [1]
> fedora-review -n ./  -m fedora-rawhide-x86_64-rpmfusion_free -p -v

I'm seeing the same thing. I tried to do a few RPM Fusion reviews
recently and I couldn't get fedora-review to run without generating
the "exception down the road."

The package(s) seem to get built in mock successfully, though, before
the failure.

Ben Rosser
___
rpmfusion-developers mailing list -- rpmfusion-developers@lists.rpmfusion.org
To unsubscribe send an email to rpmfusion-developers-le...@lists.rpmfusion.org

Re: openmw: fc27 rebuild needed [RFBZ#4662]

[Ben Rosser]

On Tue, Oct 17, 2017 at 9:19 PM, Ralf Corsepius <rc040...@freenet.de> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Would somebody with the appropriate privileges please look into
> https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=4662 ?
>
> This package currently is not installable for fc27 due to an SONAME bump in
> a library this package depends on. It would need a rebuild for fc27.
>
> Ralf

I'm currently taking care of this, thanks for the heads up.

I became an openmw comaintainer a few weeks ago, and I have the
"watchbugzilla" permission according to
https://admin.rpmfusion.org/pkgdb/package/free/openmw/. However I
didn't actually get an email notification when this bug was filed...
so I missed it. Is this expected? I don't think I've changed my
default email settings for the RPM Fusion bugzilla.

Ben Rosser
___
rpmfusion-developers mailing list -- rpmfusion-developers@lists.rpmfusion.org
To unsubscribe send an email to rpmfusion-developers-le...@lists.rpmfusion.org

Re: FTBFS for f27

[Ben Rosser]

On Mon, Sep 11, 2017 at 11:32 AM, Andrea Musuruane <musur...@gmail.com> wrote:
> BTW, to have a complete fs-uae experience we still miss fs-uae-launcher
> (#4028) and fs-uae-arcade (#4029). I'm available to swap reviews.
>
> Regards,
>
> Andrea

I'd be happy to review both of these.

Are you willing to review
https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=4639 (dfhack) in
exchange? It's a somewhat complex package, so if not, that's okay.

Ben Rosser
___
rpmfusion-developers mailing list -- rpmfusion-developers@lists.rpmfusion.org
To unsubscribe send an email to rpmfusion-developers-le...@lists.rpmfusion.org

Re: Review swap for finishing up tilem

[Ben Rosser]

On Mon, Jul 3, 2017 at 2:01 PM, Ben Rosser <rosser@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I just sent a review swap email to the Fedora devel list. I'm also
> looking for a reviewer to finish up the review of tilem:
> https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=4293
>
> I'd love to get this in before Fedora 26 actually releases.
>
> I'd be happy to swap a review for this, either in RPM Fusion or Fedora.
>
> Ben Rosser

Review swap offer still stands.

Ben
___
rpmfusion-developers mailing list -- rpmfusion-developers@lists.rpmfusion.org
To unsubscribe send an email to rpmfusion-developers-le...@lists.rpmfusion.org

Review swap for finishing up tilem

[Ben Rosser]

Hi,

I just sent a review swap email to the Fedora devel list. I'm also
looking for a reviewer to finish up the review of tilem:
https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=4293

I'd love to get this in before Fedora 26 actually releases.

I'd be happy to swap a review for this, either in RPM Fusion or Fedora.

Ben Rosser
___
rpmfusion-developers mailing list -- rpmfusion-developers@lists.rpmfusion.org
To unsubscribe send an email to rpmfusion-developers-le...@lists.rpmfusion.org

Review swap for RPM Fusion

[Ben Rosser]

Hi,

Would anyone be interested in a RPM Fusion review swap?

I have a handful of packages in the RPM Fusion review queue, but the
one I'd most like to get reviewed right now is tilem:
https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=4293.

I'd be happy to review a package in Fedora in exchange too.

Ben Rosser
___
rpmfusion-developers mailing list -- rpmfusion-developers@lists.rpmfusion.org
To unsubscribe send an email to rpmfusion-developers-le...@lists.rpmfusion.org

Re: RPMFusion or Fedora?

[Ben Rosser]

On Sat, Dec 17, 2016 at 2:54 AM, Ralf Corsepius <rc040...@freenet.de> wrote:

> A package, which downloads/side-loads stuff from sources out of Fedora and
> operates outside of rpm's control is not acceptable in Fedora (and should
> not be acceptable in RPMFusion, as well).
>

Then why does Fedora package pip, npm, etc, which only exist do to
precisely this? I'm not sure this is quite as cut-and-dry as you're making
it sound here.

Ben Rosser
___
rpmfusion-developers mailing list -- rpmfusion-developers@lists.rpmfusion.org
To unsubscribe send an email to rpmfusion-developers-le...@lists.rpmfusion.org

Re: RPMFusion or Fedora?

[Ben Rosser]

On Sat, Dec 17, 2016 at 2:54 AM, Ralf Corsepius <rc040...@freenet.de> wrote:

>
>> A package, which downloads/side-loads stuff from sources out of Fedora
> and operates outside of rpm's control is not acceptable in Fedora (and
> should not be acceptable in RPMFusion, as well).
>

Then why are pip, npm, etc. permitted in Fedora, when this is basically
their purpose? I feel like this is not quite as cut-and-dry as you're
making it sound here.

Ben Rosser

Re: Review swap

[Ben Rosser]

On Fri, Sep 16, 2016 at 12:03 PM, Antonio Trande <anto.tra...@gmail.com>
wrote:

> Hi.
>
> I can review in return of
> http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=4258.
>
> Any chance?
>
>
Taken, any chance you could look at either
https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=4222 (cAudio-freeworld) or
dwarffortress (https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=3953)?

Ben Rosser

Re: Reverse weak dependencies in RPMFusion packages

[Ben Rosser]

On Sat, Sep 3, 2016 at 1:24 PM, Ralf Corsepius <rc040...@freenet.de> wrote:

> On 09/03/2016 01:50 PM, Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski wrote:
>
>> Dear RPMFusion contributors!
>>
>> In light of https://fedorahosted.org/council/ticket/61 and
>> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Workstation/Third_party_software_proposal
>> should we start adding Supplements: or Enhances: weak dependencies
>> to, say, ffmpeg and other packages?
>>
>
> IMHO, no. This decision is severe mistake.
>
> Ralf
>

Which decision are you referring to-- the third party software proposal?
I'm not really sure how it's relevant to the situation of using reverse
weak deps in RPM Fusion on packages in Fedora. I think it might be valuable
to have a separate discussion about it though, because it seems to entirely
short circuit existing efforts to provide additional (sometimes nonfree)
software for Fedora-- namely, this one.

In any case, in regards to the original topic at hand, I think it makes
sense to use reverse weak deps in RPM Fusion where appropriate.

Ben Rosser

Re: libdvdcss in RPM Fusion ?

[Ben Rosser]

On Thu, Sep 1, 2016 at 12:56 PM, Xavier Bachelot <xav...@bachelot.org>
wrote:

> On 23/07/2016 08:27, Michael Cronenworth wrote:
>
>> On 07/08/2016 12:59 PM, Xavier Bachelot wrote:
>>
>>> The reasoning is VideoLAN is a French organization and libdvdcss is
>>> legal in France.
>>> Seehttp://www.videolan.org/legal.html
>>>
>>> Starting from that point, the first question to answer to be able to
>>> distribute libdvdcss in RPM Fusion is which laws do apply to RPM Fusion.
>>> As all (?) of the servers are hosted in France, I believe the French law
>>> applies and thus it should be safe. But indeed, that is just what I
>>> understand from RPM Fusion infrastructure and I might be wrong.
>>>
>>> Second question is, do the people that run the RPM Fusion infra and thus
>>> might be considered liable for the distributed content accept the
>>> potential legal risk, which is pretty low if French laws apply, but is
>>> still non-null. Also, just like I'm unsure where the servers are
>>> located, I'm unsure of the Infra head count and names.
>>>
>>> I'll reach out to VideoLAN as soon as we have answers to the above
>>> questions.
>>> Also, once the above are answered, we can then talk about how the RPM
>>> Fusion contributors feel about libdvdcss, but my (biased) feeling is
>>> most of current contributors are ok . However, there have been some
>>> people that were advert to having libdvdcss in RPM Fusion in the past. I
>>> don't know who they are, what were their exact reasoning, if they are
>>> still active or not and if they've changed their mind. That's why I was
>>> calling especially for opinions against distributing libdvdcss.
>>>
>>
>> Nicolas, can you share your thoughts on this?
>>
>
> Now that the summer vacations are coming to an end, hopefully more people
> are around and can raise their voice.
> Infra people, packages maintainers, mirror admins, end-users, don't be
> shy, let us know what you think about including libdvdcss in RPM Fusion.
>
> Regards,
> Xavier
>

As a package maintainer and end-user, I think it'd be valuable to have
libdvdcss in RPM Fusion.

If there is some concern about mirroring, though, perhaps we could create a
*third* repository for this sort of even more dubious package? Which I
guess at the moment would just be libdvdcss and anything that depends on
it. Then mirrors that don't / can't ship it simply don't mirror this
additional repo.

Ben Rosser

RPM Fusion review swaps

[Ben Rosser]

Hello,

I now have three pending package reviews for RPM Fusion:

cAudio-freeworld (https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=4222)
dwarffortress (https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=3953)
dwartherapist (https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=4059)

Is there any interest in review swaps?

cAudio was already reviewed and approved for Fedora; the RPM Fusion package
just ships the MP3 decoder plugin, so it should be relatively
straightforward.

dwarffortress is nonfree, and dwarftherapist depends on dwarffortress and
is thus also nonfree, despite being otherwise completely FOSS.

Thanks in advance,
Ben Rosser

Re: Workaround of some buildroot failure and ffmpeg

[Ben Rosser]

On Thu, Jul 7, 2016 at 2:01 PM, Ben Rosser <rosser@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Wed, Jul 6, 2016 at 11:52 PM, Ben Rosser <rosser@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Wed, Jul 6, 2016 at 5:44 PM, Nicolas Chauvet <kwiz...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> - rfpkg needs to be removed from the default buildroot and use
>>> rfpkg-minimal instead.
>>> This is a simple task that anyone can take. (convert and create
>>> rfpkg-minimal rpm package based on fedpkg-minimal)
>>>
>>
>> I just took a look at this, since it sounded like something I might be
>> able to do. fedpkg-minimal is pretty straightforward:
>> https://git.fedorahosted.org/cgit/fedpkg-minimal.git/tree/bin/fedpkg
>>
>> Unfortunately, an RPM Fusion equivalent will need to know whether or not
>> the package in question is in free/ or in nonfree/, because of the dist-git
>> namespacing. e.g. the curl line should become
>> "$baseurl/free/$pkgname/$tarball/$md5sum/$tarball" or
>> "$baseurl/nonfree/$pkgname/$tarball/$md5sum/$tarball". Assuming I'm not
>> missing something obvious, I can think of three ways to deal with this:
>>
>> a. Provide rfpkg-free and rfpkg-nonfree scripts, one for each namespace.
>>
>> b. Attempt to download both and ignore failures (curl ... || true?), then
>> check to see if the file exists before proceeding.
>>
>> c. Somehow determine whether a package is in free/ or nonfree/ at
>> runtime. This would be the optimal solution but I'm not sure if there's a
>> good way to do it. Perhaps checking .git/config for a configured remote
>> with URL containing "free" or "nonfree"?
>>
>> Thoughts?
>>
>> Ben Rosser
>>
>
>
> I ended up implementing (c) *and* (b); rfpkg-minimal attempts to read
> .git/config and then just tries to download from both if it is not there. I
> forked the fedpkg-minimal git repo and pushed to github here:
> https://github.com/TC01/rfpkg-minimal
>
> If this looks good, I'm happy to throw together a spec and submit a
> package for review.
>
> Ben Rosser
>

Well, preliminary review request opened, since I figured I might as well
throw together a spec file too:
https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=4112.

Ben Rosser

Re: Workaround of some buildroot failure and ffmpeg

[Ben Rosser]

On Wed, Jul 6, 2016 at 11:52 PM, Ben Rosser <rosser@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Wed, Jul 6, 2016 at 5:44 PM, Nicolas Chauvet <kwiz...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> - rfpkg needs to be removed from the default buildroot and use
>> rfpkg-minimal instead.
>> This is a simple task that anyone can take. (convert and create
>> rfpkg-minimal rpm package based on fedpkg-minimal)
>>
>
> I just took a look at this, since it sounded like something I might be
> able to do. fedpkg-minimal is pretty straightforward:
> https://git.fedorahosted.org/cgit/fedpkg-minimal.git/tree/bin/fedpkg
>
> Unfortunately, an RPM Fusion equivalent will need to know whether or not
> the package in question is in free/ or in nonfree/, because of the dist-git
> namespacing. e.g. the curl line should become
> "$baseurl/free/$pkgname/$tarball/$md5sum/$tarball" or
> "$baseurl/nonfree/$pkgname/$tarball/$md5sum/$tarball". Assuming I'm not
> missing something obvious, I can think of three ways to deal with this:
>
> a. Provide rfpkg-free and rfpkg-nonfree scripts, one for each namespace.
>
> b. Attempt to download both and ignore failures (curl ... || true?), then
> check to see if the file exists before proceeding.
>
> c. Somehow determine whether a package is in free/ or nonfree/ at runtime.
> This would be the optimal solution but I'm not sure if there's a good way
> to do it. Perhaps checking .git/config for a configured remote with URL
> containing "free" or "nonfree"?
>
> Thoughts?
>
> Ben Rosser
>


I ended up implementing (c) *and* (b); rfpkg-minimal attempts to read
.git/config and then just tries to download from both if it is not there. I
forked the fedpkg-minimal git repo and pushed to github here:
https://github.com/TC01/rfpkg-minimal

If this looks good, I'm happy to throw together a spec and submit a package
for review.

Ben Rosser

Re: Kodi

[Ben Rosser]

On Wed, Jun 22, 2016 at 5:57 PM, Michael Cronenworth <m...@cchtml.com>
wrote:

> On 06/22/2016 04:23 PM, Nicolas Chauvet wrote:
>
>> Please read again what I've said, I have no issue to  backport kodi 17
>> to stable (f24) at some point.
>> There is nothing wrong against updating f24 kodi 16 to 17 18 or
>> whatever. But having the repo and upgrade path broken for 23-->24 user
>> migration is more a problem. This is a rel-eng concern.
>>
>
> It should be the package maintainers discretion as to if a version is
> stable enough or not - not by only reading the words "alpha" or "beta" and
> saying "No, we cannot have this version in our repos." I have found that
> Kodi alpha/beta releases are stable enough to be consumed by everyone, but
> I will only issue an update after I have tested it myself.


Reading both of these emails, I think there may be a miscommunication as to
whether or not "alpha" and "stable" are referring to the Fedora 24 release
or the Kodi release?

(I may be wrong, though, sorry for butting into this if so).

Ben Rosser

Introduction, potentially packaging Dwarf Fortress for -nonfree

[Ben Rosser]

Hello!

I'm a sponsored Fedora packager, who's new to rpmfusion, and undergraduate
student (senior) at Johns Hopkins University studying computer science and
physics. The reason I'm finally (after using it since Fedora 13) looking
into contributing to rpmfusion is:

A few weeks ago, a friend mentioned that Dwarf Fortress (
http://www.bay12games.com/dwarves/), a closed-source but
free-to-redistribute game, is packaged for Arch Linux. I was surprised
because I didn't actually realize DF was free to redistribute, but I
checked the license and confirmed that indeed, it is [*].

So I started wondering if this was something we could get into
rpmfusion-nonfree. While Dwarf Fortress is *mostly* closed source, the
graphics code is open source; the Arch maintainer is tracking changes to
the graphics code in a github repository here:
https://github.com/svenstaro/dwarf_fortress_unfuck. So the Arch package (
https://www.archlinux.org/packages/community/i686/dwarffortress/ ) compiles
the graphics code, removes the bundled libraries, and also includes a
.desktop file and launcher script.

Based heavily on the Arch package, I've written an RPM spec file:
https://mars.arosser.com/fedora/rpmfusion/dwarffortress.spec. Note that the
package only builds for i386, but can be installed on x86_64 just fine.

I guess I have two questions before submitting an actual review request for
this:

1. Is this the sort of thing that belongs in rpmfusion-nonfree? Are we able
to package this? I believe so, but wanted to check first.

2. How do rpmfusion policies feel about the use of /opt for packages? I
know that in Fedora, it's very strongly discouraged. The Arch package drops
Dwarf Fortress into /opt/dwarfforrtress; my RPM currently does the same
thing. It could be moved elsewhere, but I'm not entirely sure where since
there are both binaries and data (so /usr/share/dwarffortress would
probably be a bad path, for instance).

Thanks in advance!
Ben Rosser

[*] The full text of the license for DF reads: "Copyright (c) 2002-2012.
All rights are retained by Tarn Adams, save the following:  you may
redistribute the binary and accompanying files, unmodified, provided you do
so free of charge.  If you'd like to distribute a modified version of the
game or portion of the archive and are worried about copyright
infringement, please contact Tarn Adams at toady...@bay12games.com."