Re: RPMFusion or Fedora?

2016-12-17 Thread Alec Leamas
I think Ralf refers to the rules for games and emulators simply because this is a game application. However, IMHO the answer here really depends the type of the database downloaded from the server. If it's indeed something which can be compared to a game (as opposed to the game engine)

[Bug 4363] Review request: chromium-libs-media-freeworld - Chromium media libraries built with all possible codecs

2016-12-17 Thread RPM Fusion Bugzilla
https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=4363 --- Comment #9 from Jeremy Newton --- (In reply to Nicolas Chauvet from comment #8) > (In reply to Jeremy Newton from comment #7) > ... > > I was going to spend some time today to update it, but if this is a blocking > >

[Bug 4363] Review request: chromium-libs-media-freeworld - Chromium media libraries built with all possible codecs

2016-12-17 Thread RPM Fusion Bugzilla
https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=4363 --- Comment #8 from Nicolas Chauvet --- (In reply to Jeremy Newton from comment #7) ... > I was going to spend some time today to update it, but if this is a blocking > issue, I can hold off until we can sort it out. It's not

Re: RPMFusion or Fedora?

2016-12-17 Thread Ben Rosser
On Sat, Dec 17, 2016 at 2:54 AM, Ralf Corsepius 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

[Bug 4363] Review request: chromium-libs-media-freeworld - Chromium media libraries built with all possible codecs

2016-12-17 Thread RPM Fusion Bugzilla
https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=4363 --- Comment #7 from Jeremy Newton --- (In reply to Nicolas Chauvet from comment #5) > Having a more deep look into your packages, it's seems like you are > replacing the media sub-package to complement the fedora chromium

Re: RPMFusion or Fedora?

2016-12-17 Thread Ben Rosser
On Sat, Dec 17, 2016 at 2:54 AM, Ralf Corsepius 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,

[Bug 4363] Review request: chromium-libs-media-freeworld - Chromium media libraries built with all possible codecs

2016-12-17 Thread RPM Fusion Bugzilla
https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=4363 Rex Dieter changed: What|Removed |Added CC||rdie...@math.unl.edu

[Bug 4363] Review request: chromium-libs-media-freeworld - Chromium media libraries built with all possible codecs

2016-12-17 Thread RPM Fusion Bugzilla
https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=4363 --- Comment #5 from Nicolas Chauvet --- Having a more deep look into your packages, it's seems like you are replacing the media sub-package to complement the fedora chromium version. So it's by design that you "substitute"

[Bug 4363] Review request: chromium-libs-media-freeworld - Chromium media libraries built with all possible codecs

2016-12-17 Thread RPM Fusion Bugzilla
https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=4363 Miro Hrončok changed: What|Removed |Added CC||mhron...@redhat.com

[Bug 4363] Review request: chromium-libs-media-freeworld - Chromium media libraries built with all possible codecs

2016-12-17 Thread RPM Fusion Bugzilla
https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=4363 --- Comment #3 from Nicolas Chauvet --- @jeremy Any updates on this package ? I indeed think this would be more appropriate to have the chromium-freeworld package because: - it's simpler - it's assume we try to complement

Re: rfpkg broken ATM ?

2016-12-17 Thread Leigh Scott
rfpkg-1.25.1-2 has been patched to work with the new rpkg change https://github.com/rpmfusion-infra/rfpkg/commit/c2f3b36a8842716269075a03c658d4f8e36aaa55 The fixed build has been pushed to stable http://download1.rpmfusion.org/free/fedora/updates/25/x86_64/repoview/rfpkg.html