Re: RPM Fusion is near 10 years old

[Kevin Kofler]

Nicolas Chauvet wrote:
> http://blog.kwizart.fr/post/2017/09/26/169-RPM-Fusion-is-near-10-years-old
> 
> FYI, I've setup the new root certificate, if you want to grab it
> 
> curl -o ~/.rpmfusion-server-ca.crt
> https://admin.rpmfusion.org/accounts//rpmfusion-server-ca.cert

Unfortunately, the error message we get from rfpkg build in this situation
is really unhelpful, it only says:
> Deprecation warning: kojiconfig is deprecated. Instead, kojiprofile should
> be used.
> Certificate is revoked or expired.
> You might want to run rpmfusion-packager-setup to regenerate SSL
> certificate. For more info see
> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Using_the_Koji_build_system#Fedora_Account_System_.28FAS2.29_Setup
> Could not execute build: Could not auth with koji. Login failed: [SSL:
> CERTIFICATE_VERIFY_FAILED] certificate verify failed (_ssl.c:661)

"Certificate is revoked or expired." crucially does not tell you which one.
I tried regenerating a new user certificate several times with 4 different
browsers (QupZilla, Konqueror, Lynx, Firefox) only to realize that that was
not the problem. (So, I am sorry for the several revoked certificates that I
generated today.)

The other messages are also not helpful:

* rpmfusion-packager-setup does not regenerate certificates at all. It can
  only download the upload-ca and server-ca certificates and output the link
  for how to manually regenerate the user certificate, and it does even
  these things only if a file is actually missing, not if the certificate
  has expired.

* The linked Fedora wiki page no longer contains any mention of certificates
  because Fedora switched to Kerberos for authentication.

We really need better error messages in rfpkg.

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

[Bug 4634] Review request: kodi-peripheral-joystick - Kodi Joystick Report

[RPM Fusion Bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=4634

--- Comment #9 from Wade Berrier  ---
Ok, I've signed the CLA and updated the src.rpm and .spec here:

http://berrier.org/tmp/kodi-peripheral-joystick-1.3.2-2.fc26.src.rpm

http://berrier.org/tmp/kodi-peripheral-joystick.spec

This contains the requested updates.

Once approved as a packager, I'll submit the package.

-- 
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 4670] Review request: shotcut - A free, open source, cross-platform video editor

[RPM Fusion Bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=4670

--- Comment #7 from mgans...@online.de  ---
(In reply to Antonio Trande from comment #6)
> Package Review
> ==
> 
> Issues:
> ===
> 
> - mvcp/ code is released under LGPLv2+ license. Add LGPLv2+ to License and
> comment.
> 
done

> - Try to install icons under icons/dark icons/light icons/oxygen
> 
where should i place the icons, in which path ?

# install icon themes
#icons/dark/32x32
#icons/light/16x16
#icons/light/32x32
#icons/oxygen/32x32


> - shotcut crashes when closed with a "core dumped" error.  Debug it
> (https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/
> StackTraces#Obtaining_a_stack_trace_from_a_core_dump) and ask to upstream.
> 
reported upstream:
https://github.com/mltframework/shotcut/issues/456

-- 
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 4028] Review request: fs-uae-launcher - Graphical configuration frontend and launcher for FS-UAE

[RPM Fusion Bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=4028

--- Comment #9 from Andrea Musuruane  ---
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 4639] dfhack - Memory hacking library for Dwarf Fortress and a set of tools that use it

[RPM Fusion Bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=4639

--- Comment #7 from Andrea Musuruane  ---
(In reply to Ben Rosser from comment #6)
> > Isn't it possible to patch sources? Please remember that RPM Fusion 
> > builders will > need to download these data every time you request a build.
> 
> > Isn't it feasible to ship git submodules in the following way?
> > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:SourceURL#Git_Submodules
> 
> Well, there are 5 submodules, and they don't really have release tags that
> are in sync with the main repository. I certainly could include them all as
> separate Source: archives, but that seemed tedious, and since I needed the
> .git metadata anyway... but you're right that it's a lot of data to have to
> carry for little gain.

If it isn't feasible, it's OK to rebuild a tarball.

> I guess I could write a script that generates the right %commitX lines for
> the submodules and writes the output of "git describe --tags --abbrev=8
> --long" to a patch. Then at build time the patch is used to get the right
> version information.
> 
> Does this approach seem like a reasonable solution?

I think a simple patch to be independent of git data is enough. 

The output of "git describe ..." can be placed in the spec file as a variable.

> > And this one too:
> > Provides:   bundled(protobuf)
> 
> I can check again, but the last time I tried to figure this out it was not
> really possible to figure out which version of protobuf was actually bundled
> (hence my comment in the spec). The version number didn't appear to be in
> any obvious place in the sources. The revision history for the bundled
> libraries isn't ideal either, because at some point 5 years ago they were
> moved from elsewhere in the project into their current directory:
> https://github.com/DFHack/dfhack/commits/master/depends/protobuf/google
> 
> The FPC recently ruled that, if it's not possible to determine the version
> number, it is not needed in a bundled provides. See this ticket:
> https://pagure.io/packaging-committee/issue/696. So, that's the approach I
> took.

It can be "the oldest version that seems reasonable as the reason we're doing
this is to tell when a library contains issues that have been fixed in newer
upstream versions".

The following one seems to be the commit that included protobuf for the first
time:
https://github.com/DFHack/dfhack/commit/494a4202dfbede6fa3a9069334458fe7c08dd9d4

Version is in "library/depends/protobuf/google/protobuf/stubs/common.h":

// The current version, represented as a single integer to make comparison
// easier:  major * 10^6 + minor * 10^3 + micro
#define GOOGLE_PROTOBUF_VERSION 2004001

i.e. version=2.4.1.

Protobuf files were later moved -as you noted- in this commit:
https://github.com/DFHack/dfhack/commit/eb4757043b12764f20c6bd1a6edc12201f74b2ce#diff-5c3353c6afb85d60c93ec649d1f426a0

Today "common.h" can be found at:
https://github.com/DFHack/dfhack/blob/master/depends/protobuf/google/protobuf/stubs/common.h

Version there is still the same.

So I assume you can specify 2.4.1.

-- 
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 4670] Review request: shotcut - A free, open source, cross-platform video editor

[RPM Fusion Bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=4670

--- Comment #6 from Antonio Trande  ---
Package Review
==

Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed


Issues:
===

- mvcp/ code is released under LGPLv2+ license. Add LGPLv2+ to License and
comment.

- Try to install icons under icons/dark icons/light icons/oxygen

- shotcut crashes when closed with a "core dumped" error.  Debug it
(https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/StackTraces#Obtaining_a_stack_trace_from_a_core_dump)
and ask to upstream.

= MUST items =

C/C++:
[x]: Package does not contain kernel modules.
[x]: Package contains no static executables.
[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.
[!]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. 
[!]: If the package is under multiple licenses, the licensing breakdown must
 be documented in the spec.
[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.
[-]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: The spec file handles locales properly.
[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.
[-]: 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.
[-]: 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.
[-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
 (~1MB) or number of files.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one
 supported primary architecture.
[!]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
 Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[-]: 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 %doc.
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that
 are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
[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]: Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm < 4.4
[-]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[x]: Package installs a %{name}.desktop using desktop-file-install or desktop-
 file-validate if there is such a file.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install' ' DESTDIR=... doesn't
 work.
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[x]: Package do not use a name that already exist
[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:
[-]: 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).
[?]: Package functions as described.
[x]: Latest version is packaged.
[x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[x]: Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise justified.
[x]: SourceX tarball generation or download is documented.
 Note: Package contains tarball without URL, check comments
[-]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains
 translations for supported Non-English languages, if available.
[x]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all 

Re: koji-rpmfusion build not working

[Sérgio Basto]

On Sat, 2017-10-14 at 09:17 +, Martin Gansser wrote:
> [martin@f26 SPECS]$ koji-rpmfusion build rawhide-free
> ../SRPMS/mp4tools-3.5-3.fc26.src.rpm

I think you are confusing things , from [1], you should do :

cd module
git checkout f26
rfpkg build

src.rpm is only used to import initial sources [2] but is to commit
sources in cgit ... 

rfpkg clone /
cd 
rfpkg import ~/foo.src.rpm
rfpkg clog && rfpkg commit -F clog


Anyway if something can be improved in the Contributors [3] wiki page
let me know 

Best regards and thank you for yours contributions :-)


[1]
https://rpmfusion.org/Contributors#Updating_an_existing_package

[2]
https://rpmfusion.org/Contributors#Import_your_package


[3]
https://rpmfusion.org/Contributors


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

Re: koji-rpmfusion build not working

[Nicolas Chauvet]

2017-10-14 11:17 GMT+02:00 Martin Gansser :
>
> [martin@f26 SPECS]$ koji-rpmfusion build rawhide-free 
> ../SRPMS/mp4tools-3.5-3.fc26.src.rpm
> Uploading srpm: ../SRPMS/mp4tools-3.5-3.fc26.src.rpm
> [] 100% 00:00:05 259.95 KiB  43.61 KiB/sec
> Created task: 175046
> Task info: http://koji.rpmfusion.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=175046
> Watching tasks (this may be safely interrupted)...
> 175046 build (rawhide-free, mp4tools-3.5-3.fc26.src.rpm): free
> 175046 build (rawhide-free, mp4tools-3.5-3.fc26.src.rpm): free -> FAILED: 
> ActionNotAllowed: policy violation (build_from_srpm)
>   0 free  0 open  0 done  1 failed
The error is pretty clear: you are not allowed to build_from_srpm
which is the same in fedora.
You are only allowed to build from scm. Maybe you are missing the
--scratch option ?...

-- 
-

Nicolas (kwizart)
___
rpmfusion-developers mailing list -- rpmfusion-developers@lists.rpmfusion.org
To unsubscribe send an email to rpmfusion-developers-le...@lists.rpmfusion.org

Re: koji-rpmfusion build not working

[Leigh Scott]

Try this for test builds 

koji-rpmfusion build --scratch rawhide-free ../SRPMS/mp4tools-3.5-3.fc26.src.rpm
___
rpmfusion-developers mailing list -- rpmfusion-developers@lists.rpmfusion.org
To unsubscribe send an email to rpmfusion-developers-le...@lists.rpmfusion.org

Re: koji-rpmfusion build not working

[Leigh Scott]

You can only do --scratch builds from srpm


koji-rpmfusion build --scratch rawhide-free ../SRPMS/mp4tools-3.5-3.fc26.src.rpm
___
rpmfusion-developers mailing list -- rpmfusion-developers@lists.rpmfusion.org
To unsubscribe send an email to rpmfusion-developers-le...@lists.rpmfusion.org

koji-rpmfusion build not working

[Martin Gansser]

[martin@f26 SPECS]$ koji-rpmfusion build rawhide-free 
../SRPMS/mp4tools-3.5-3.fc26.src.rpm
Uploading srpm: ../SRPMS/mp4tools-3.5-3.fc26.src.rpm
[] 100% 00:00:05 259.95 KiB  43.61 KiB/sec
Created task: 175046
Task info: http://koji.rpmfusion.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=175046
Watching tasks (this may be safely interrupted)...
175046 build (rawhide-free, mp4tools-3.5-3.fc26.src.rpm): free
175046 build (rawhide-free, mp4tools-3.5-3.fc26.src.rpm): free -> FAILED: 
ActionNotAllowed: policy violation (build_from_srpm)
  0 free  0 open  0 done  1 failed

175046 build (rawhide-free, mp4tools-3.5-3.fc26.src.rpm) failed
___
rpmfusion-developers mailing list -- rpmfusion-developers@lists.rpmfusion.org
To unsubscribe send an email to rpmfusion-developers-le...@lists.rpmfusion.org

[Bug 4641] Review request: mp4tools - A free cross-platform tool to manipulate MP4 files

[RPM Fusion Bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=4641

mgans...@online.de  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
 Resolution|--- |FIXED

--- Comment #17 from mgans...@online.de  ---
The import and build have been done correctly.

-- 
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