On 26.10.2008 14:35, Thorsten Leemhuis wrote:
/me removed a few mailing lists from the CC
One more ripped
On 25.10.2008 19:16, Nicolas Mailhot wrote:
Le samedi 25 octobre 2008 à 18:47 +0200, Thorsten Leemhuis a écrit :
On 25.10.2008 18:23, Nicolas Mailhot wrote:
Le samedi 25 octobre 2008
On 27.10.2008 00:03, Linus Walleij wrote:
Sorry, I'm late to the show. I'm doing the sidplay (-libs) package that
brings the /usr/bin/sidplay2 binary.
I work on Fedora too, and code some libraries etc.
Now I need to know what to do next. sidplay was in Dribble, should I
just import it to
KLinus Walleij wrote:
sön 2008-10-26 klockan 15:27 +0100 skrev Thorsten Leemhuis:
=== nonfree ===
[...]
triad_[AT]_df.lth.se | sidplay-libs | Not found in nonfree-devel
triad_[AT]_df.lth.se | sidplay-libs | Not found in nonfree-F-8
triad_[AT]_df.lth.se | sidplay-libs | Not found in nonfree-F-9
Hi!
On 26.10.2008 19:58, Uwe Kubosch wrote:
I have submitted a review request for zfs-fuse at
https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=85
Thx for submitting!
It should be a very easy review. Anybody got time? Please?
There are a few other packages that awaiting review:
On Mon, 27 Oct 2008 08:39:46 +0100, Thorsten Leemhuis wrote:
I had to disable repoview for now, as it fails for SRPM repos with the
repodata generated by the new createrepo:
Traceback (most recent call last):
File /usr/bin/repoview, line 865, in ?
main()
File
Thorsten Leemhuis wrote:
Hi!
On 26.10.2008 19:58, Uwe Kubosch wrote:
I have submitted a review request for zfs-fuse at
https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=85
Thx for submitting!
For the record, this is also submitted to Fedora. My original odds for
fuse-zfs making it into
http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=67
--- Comment #7 from Denis Leroy [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-10-27 10:09:22 ---
http://www.poolshark.org/src/open-vm-tools-0.0.0.123053-4.fc10.src.rpm
http://www.poolshark.org/src/open-vm-tools.spec
There is some confusion in the upstream tarball
On 27.10.2008 04:03, Jarod Wilson wrote:
On Mon, 2008-10-27 at 00:22 +, Chris Nolan wrote:
Jarod, Thorsten et al, couple of questions for you guys...
[...]
Now I have a couple of questions:
1) What should the package be called? I'm not thrilled with
hybrid_wl-kmod because I don't think
http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=68
--- Comment #4 from Denis Leroy [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-10-27 10:24:11 ---
I've reset the release to 1%{?dist}.1
http://www.poolshark.org/src/open-vm-tools-kmod-0.0.0.123053-1.fc10.1.src.rpm
http://www.poolshark.org/src/open-vm-tools-kmod.spec
Nothing earlier than 2.2.2 is expected to be really useable.
abompard and me were waiting for a fedora dependency approval which
happened earlier this week-end.
This package will need to be updated for all Fedora version.
2008/10/26 Thorsten Leemhuis [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Author: thl
Update of
2008/10/27 Denis Leroy [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
For the record, this is also submitted to Fedora. My original odds for
fuse-zfs making it into Fedora were originally poor, but I recently
upgraded them to good after talking to Simon Phipps (Sun Open Source Chief
Officer). However this may still take
On 27.10.2008 10:31, KH KH wrote:
Nothing earlier than 2.2.2 is expected to be really useable.
Well, that amule was in Livna for ages; the same version was in
Frehsrpms as well, hence it was imported to provide a sane update
path for users of both repos. Also note that the import was
announced
Just a note: I asked Uwe to submit the package for RPM Fusion (after he
added it to the wishlist), as back then (a week or two ago) it afaics
looked highly unlikely that zfs-fuse will make it into Fedora.
Also note that Uwe mentioned the Fedora review request in his RPM Fusion
bugzilla review
2008/10/27 Thorsten Leemhuis [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Also note that Uwe mentioned the Fedora review request in his RPM Fusion
bugzilla review request.
My fault. Sorry, I should have read RPM Fusion BZ and not assuming things.
Therefore you should ask for a review only if the package will be
On 27.10.2008 11:10, Andrea Musuruane wrote:
[...]
IMHO next time, it would be advisable to have a troubled package to
be submitted here first and then to Fedora for a Legal check. In this
way a package submitted to Fedora should also be reviewed more
quickly.
Well, that is double work for a
Hi all!
I know there are still some things that are not fully in shape or ready
for the RPM Fusion launch; but that will likely always be the case (just
like each release of a software contains some known bugs). And in fact
it seems to me that RPM Fusion already is in better shape then Livna
Jarod Wilson wrote:
Used what I believe were the same bits I used on the AppleTV, and the
performance was even worse than w/hybrid_wl, and ultimately, the
connection completely died. Need to try with another (newer) driver (the
one Dell actually published for the card).
[...]
I'd lean that
2008/10/27 Thorsten Leemhuis [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Well, that is double work for a lot of people (reviews, branch creation,
import, initial builds and some other things ned to be done in both Fedora
and RPM Fusion). Hence I'd say the way Uwe took was the right one -- go to
Fedora, if it looks
On 27.10.2008 11:37, Hans de Goede wrote:
Thorsten Leemhuis wrote:
[...]
Date and time of Fedora 10 preview release -4 hours
+1
Although maybe make that -24 hours, so that we can make plenty of fuzz before
the preview release, we don't want to send our announcement after the preview
On 27.10.2008 11:44, Andrea Musuruane wrote:
2008/10/27 Thorsten Leemhuis [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Well, that is double work for a lot of people (reviews, branch creation,
import, initial builds and some other things ned to be done in both Fedora
and RPM Fusion). Hence I'd say the way Uwe took was
Thorsten Leemhuis wrote:
Please don't use the term -kmod-common in the package name; just
call it broadcom-hybrid-wl and add
Provides: broadcom-hybrid-wl-kmod-common = %{version}-%{release}
Thinking about it some more: Maybe the best scheme for both packages
might be:
kmod-wl for the
On 27.10.2008 12:15, Chris Nolan wrote:
Thorsten Leemhuis wrote:
Please don't use the term -kmod-common in the package name; just
call it broadcom-hybrid-wl and add
Provides: broadcom-hybrid-wl-kmod-common = %{version}-%{release}
Thinking about it some more: Maybe the best scheme for both
On Mon, 2008-10-27 at 10:27 +, Chris Nolan wrote:
(FWIW I've got a 4328 chipset on x86_64).
No you don't. :)
lspci lies, someone screwed up the name for device id 4328. The 4321
and
4322 typically sit behind a bridge that has device id 4328, or
something
like that, there
http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=67
--- Comment #10 from Andrea Musuruane [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-10-27 17:22:06
---
(In reply to comment #9)
Remaining rpmlints are either WONTFIX or exceptions for this package (see
setuid explanation in previous comments). I'm sorry but this
On 27.10.2008 09:56, Michael Schwendt wrote:
On Mon, 27 Oct 2008 08:39:46 +0100, Thorsten Leemhuis wrote:
I had to disable repoview for now, as it fails for SRPM repos with the
repodata generated by the new createrepo:
Traceback (most recent call last):
File /usr/bin/repoview, line 865,
http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=67
--- Comment #12 from Denis Leroy [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-10-27 17:58:31 ---
BTW, what happened to the libraries, headers and related
things that Orcan Ogetbil noted?
There was a single header file for people interested in hacking with
On 26.10.2008 23:55, Julian Sikorski wrote:
Christopher Stone pisze:
On Sun, Oct 26, 2008 at 7:59 AM, Thorsten Leemhuis [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote
We are afaics getting closer to have RPM Fusion ready for the
official lunch, so if it's fine for everyone I'd say we move the all
http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=85
David Juran [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||[EMAIL PROTECTED]
---
http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=67
--- Comment #13 from Orcan Ogetbil [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-10-27 20:53:23 ---
I worked on the spec file more:
SPEC: http://6mata.com:8014/review/open-vm-tools.spec
SRPM: http://6mata.com:8014/review/open-vm-tools-0.0.0.123053-6.fc9.src.rpm
*
http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=89
Orcan Ogetbil [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2
Bug 2 depends on bug 89, which changed state.
Bug 89 Summary: Review request: avbin - Cross-platform media decoding library
http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=89
What|Old Value |New Value
http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=44
NicolasChauvet [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed:
What|Removed |Added
Blocks|2 |
http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2
NicolasChauvet [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed:
What|Removed |Added
Depends on|44 |
--
Configure
http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=96
Summary: Review request: broadcom wireless kmod (wl-kmod)
Product: Package Reviews
Version: Current
Platform: All
URL: http://www.cenolan.com/fedora9/broadcom-wl/
OS/Version:
http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=96
--- Comment #1 from Chris Nolan [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-10-27 21:42:22 ---
In case it isn't clear from the above: the SRPM, RPMs and spec file can be
found at:
http://www.cenolan.com/fedora9/broadcom-wl/
Cheers
Chris
--
Configure bugmail:
Thorsten Leemhuis wrote:
On 27.10.2008 12:15, Chris Nolan wrote:
As an end user I find that slightly confusing to have so many
different permutations. I would find it less confusing to do your
original way and drop the hybrid altogether:
kmod-wl for the kmod package
broadcom-wl for the
http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2
Chris Nolan [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=96
Chris Nolan [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed:
What|Removed |Added
Blocks||2
--
Configure
http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=96
--- Comment #2 from Jarod Wilson [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-10-27 22:22:28 ---
One brief initial comment: the spec file name and base rpm name should be the
same. i.e., if its going to be wl-kmod for the main (important) rpm and source
rpm name,
Michael Schwendt [EMAIL PROTECTED] has used the 'sudo' feature to access
Bugzilla using your account.
Michael Schwendt [EMAIL PROTECTED] provided the following reason for
doing this:
taking a look at the package review email notification prefs
If you feel that this action was
On 27.10.2008 21:48, Chris Nolan wrote:
Thorsten Leemhuis wrote:
On 27.10.2008 12:15, Chris Nolan wrote:
As an end user I find that slightly confusing to have so many
different permutations. I would find it less confusing to do your
original way and drop the hybrid altogether:
kmod-wl for
http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=67
--- Comment #14 from Thorsten Leemhuis [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-10-28 06:58:56
---
(In reply to comment #13)
(2) I made a devel package with the libguestlib.so symlink and all the header
files in the /sourcedir/lib/include directory. There
42 matches
Mail list logo
