[Bug 6331] Review request: nvidia-vaapi-driver - VA-API implementation that uses NVDEC as a backend
https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=6331 Nicolas Chauvet changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED Resolution|--- |FIXED --- Comment #10 from Nicolas Chauvet --- Thanks for the review -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.___ rpmfusion-developers mailing list -- rpmfusion-developers@lists.rpmfusion.org To unsubscribe send an email to rpmfusion-developers-le...@lists.rpmfusion.org
[Bug 6331] Review request: nvidia-vaapi-driver - VA-API implementation that uses NVDEC as a backend
https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=6331
Vitaly Zaitsev changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #9 from Vitaly Zaitsev ---
LGTM. Approved.
During import please add the following:
Requires: mesa-filesystem%{?_isa}
Conflicts: libva-vdpau-driver%{?_isa}
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.___
rpmfusion-developers mailing list -- rpmfusion-developers@lists.rpmfusion.org
To unsubscribe send an email to rpmfusion-developers-le...@lists.rpmfusion.org
[Bug 6331] Review request: nvidia-vaapi-driver - VA-API implementation that uses NVDEC as a backend
https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=6331
--- Comment #8 from Vitaly Zaitsev ---
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
= MUST items =
C/C++:
[x]: Provides: bundled(gnulib) in place as required.
Note: Sources not installed
[x]: Package does not contain kernel modules.
[x]: Package contains no static executables.
[-]: Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present.
Note: Unversioned so-files in private %_libdir subdirectory (see
attachment). Verify they are not in ld path.
[x]: If your application is a C or C++ application you must list a
BuildRequires against gcc, gcc-c++ or clang.
[x]: Header files in -devel subpackage, if present.
[x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la)
[x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs.
Generic:
[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
Guidelines.
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[!]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/lib64/dri
[x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[x]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[x]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory
names).
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[x]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
Provides are present.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[x]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[x]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
(~1MB) or number of files.
Note: Documentation size is 10240 bytes in 1 files.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least
one supported primary architecture.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the
license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the
license(s) for the package is included in %license.
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
beginning of %install.
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: Dist tag is present.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: Package must not depend on deprecated() packages.
[x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install DESTDIR=... doesn't
work.
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[x]: Package does not use a name that already exists.
[x]: Package is not relocatable.
[x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as
provided in the spec URL.
[x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec.
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local
= SHOULD items =
Generic:
[x]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate
file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it.
[x]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments).
[x]: Package functions as described.
[x]: Latest version is packaged.
[x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[x]: Sources are verified with gpgverify first in %prep if upstream
publishes signatures.
Note: gpgverify is not used.
[x]: %check is present and all tests pass.
[x]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed
files.
[x]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.
[x]: Buildroot is not present
[x]: Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or
$RPM_BUILD_ROOT)
[x]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin.
[x]: Fully versioned
[Bug 6331] Review request: nvidia-vaapi-driver - VA-API implementation that uses NVDEC as a backend
https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=6331 --- Comment #7 from Julian Sikorski --- Fair enough. Feel free to pick up any of the parts of my spec you find useful. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.___ rpmfusion-developers mailing list -- rpmfusion-developers@lists.rpmfusion.org To unsubscribe send an email to rpmfusion-developers-le...@lists.rpmfusion.org
[Bug 6331] Review request: nvidia-vaapi-driver - VA-API implementation that uses NVDEC as a backend
https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=6331 --- Comment #6 from Nicolas Chauvet --- (In reply to Julian Sikorski from comment #5) > Is there a reason for this to go to RPM Fusion? > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2077910 As said earlier, there is a need for a nvdec implementation at runtime. Despite fedora advertise the nvidia driver in their repo, we are the provider of the driver, so it has to be provided in the same repo. NVDEC is a dedicated API, and there is no consensus for this API to be adopted by another vendor or even a FLOSS implementation. (vulkan video will be more relevant for this). -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.___ rpmfusion-developers mailing list -- rpmfusion-developers@lists.rpmfusion.org To unsubscribe send an email to rpmfusion-developers-le...@lists.rpmfusion.org
[Bug 6331] Review request: nvidia-vaapi-driver - VA-API implementation that uses NVDEC as a backend
https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=6331 Julian Sikorski changed: What|Removed |Added CC||beleg...@gmail.com --- Comment #5 from Julian Sikorski --- Is there a reason for this to go to RPM Fusion? https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2077910 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.___ rpmfusion-developers mailing list -- rpmfusion-developers@lists.rpmfusion.org To unsubscribe send an email to rpmfusion-developers-le...@lists.rpmfusion.org
[Bug 6331] Review request: nvidia-vaapi-driver - VA-API implementation that uses NVDEC as a backend
https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=6331 --- Comment #4 from Nicolas Chauvet --- FYI, I don't remember the previous discution with upstream about this issue: https://github.com/intel/libva/pull/554#issuecomment-1155341757 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.___ rpmfusion-developers mailing list -- rpmfusion-developers@lists.rpmfusion.org To unsubscribe send an email to rpmfusion-developers-le...@lists.rpmfusion.org
[Bug 6331] Review request: nvidia-vaapi-driver - VA-API implementation that uses NVDEC as a backend
https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=6331
--- Comment #3 from Vitaly Zaitsev ---
Please add Conflicts: libva-vdpau-driver%{?_isa}
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.___
rpmfusion-developers mailing list -- rpmfusion-developers@lists.rpmfusion.org
To unsubscribe send an email to rpmfusion-developers-le...@lists.rpmfusion.org
[Bug 6331] Review request: nvidia-vaapi-driver - VA-API implementation that uses NVDEC as a backend
https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=6331
--- Comment #2 from Vitaly Zaitsev ---
This package contains %{_libdir}/dri/nvidia_drv_video.so and conflicts with
libva-vdpau-driver.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.___
rpmfusion-developers mailing list -- rpmfusion-developers@lists.rpmfusion.org
To unsubscribe send an email to rpmfusion-developers-le...@lists.rpmfusion.org
[Bug 6331] Review request: nvidia-vaapi-driver - VA-API implementation that uses NVDEC as a backend
https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=6331 Vitaly Zaitsev changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||vit...@easycoding.org Assignee|rpmfusion-package-review@rp |vit...@easycoding.org |mfusion.org | Flags||fedora-review? --- Comment #1 from Vitaly Zaitsev --- I will review this package. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are the assignee for the bug.___ rpmfusion-developers mailing list -- rpmfusion-developers@lists.rpmfusion.org To unsubscribe send an email to rpmfusion-developers-le...@lists.rpmfusion.org
[Bug 6331] Review request: nvidia-vaapi-driver - VA-API implementation that uses NVDEC as a backend
https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=6331 Nicolas Chauvet changed: What|Removed |Added Group|Package Reviews | CC list accessible|1 |0 Reporter|1 |0 accessible|| -- 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
