[Bug 827167] Review Request: bumblebee - Bumblebee daemon

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=827167

Raphael Groner  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|NEW |CLOSED
 CC||projects...@smart.ms
 Resolution|--- |CANTFIX
  Flags||fedora-review-
Last Closed||2017-02-06 16:42:52



--- Comment #34 from Raphael Groner  ---
bumblebee is already on the RPMFusion whislist. We've obviously to close here.
Nouveau only does not seem to be the right option.

>  Why not in Fedora: Fedora does not support the proprietary Nvidia drivers.

https://rpmfusion.org/Wishlist

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 827167] Review Request: bumblebee - Bumblebee daemon

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=827167



--- Comment #33 from Ben Rosser  ---
Oh, I see. 

Yes, if the nouveau support in bumblebee is going to be removed and all that's
left is bumblebee-nvidia, Fedora proper would not be able to package that.

(As a user of systems with hybrid Nvidia graphics, I think that'd be a bit
unfortunate, but oh well. The runtime power management stuff on the linked wiki
page did not just work out of the box for me on a fresh Fedora installation,
but I also didn't put much time into trying to debug it and just installed
bumblebee+bbswitch instead).

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 827167] Review Request: bumblebee - Bumblebee daemon

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=827167



--- Comment #32 from Gary Gatling  ---
I will try to upload the current version + spec file to the website tomorrow
and test Nouveau support to see if it still works in fedora 24. If it doesn't
work I feel I can get it working again pretty easily.

But also, see this thread:

https://github.com/Bumblebee-Project/Bumblebee/issues/773

So it may no longer be appropriate for the fedora distribution?

I can try to get clarification from the developers in that issue on github.com.

Thanks for your kind offer to review this package. I'll update this ticket when
everything is in place tomorrow and I'll try to get clarification about the
future of Nouveau support.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 827167] Review Request: bumblebee - Bumblebee daemon

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=827167

Ben Rosser  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 CC||rosser@gmail.com



--- Comment #31 from Ben Rosser  ---
Hey, are you still interested in getting bumblebee into Fedora?

I would be happy to review bumblebee packages as needed.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 827167] Review Request: bumblebee - Bumblebee daemon

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=827167



--- Comment #30 from Upstream Release Monitoring 
 ---
jgrulich's scratch build of kdevelop?#c8e2b9bc57f11e41f3dc6612cdbcc591078d9062
for f22-candidate and
git://pkgs.fedoraproject.org/kdevelop?#c8e2b9bc57f11e41f3dc6612cdbcc591078d9062
completed http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=11212117

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 827167] Review Request: bumblebee - Bumblebee daemon

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=827167

Christopher Meng cicku...@gmail.com changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|ASSIGNED|NEW
   Assignee|cicku...@gmail.com  |nob...@fedoraproject.org
  Flags|fedora-review?  |



-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 827167] Review Request: bumblebee - Bumblebee daemon

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=827167

--- Comment #29 from Gary Gatling gsgat...@ncsu.edu ---

Hello. Here is the newest version I worked on.

http://install.linux.ncsu.edu/pub/yum/itecs/public/bumblebee/fedora19/spec/2/bumblebee.spec

install.linux.ncsu.edu/pub/yum/itecs/public/bumblebee/fedora19/spec/package/bumblebee-3.2.1-4.fc19.src.rpm
 

Notice the 

#%else
#%systemd_post bumblebeed.service

I had to comment out and the lines:

%else
/bin/systemctl daemon-reload /dev/null 21 || :
/bin/systemctl enable bumblebeed.service /dev/null 21 || :
/bin/systemctl start bumblebeed.service /dev/null 21 || :

I had to add back in to get it to auto start again. Any advice for correctly
using the systemd macros would be greatly appreciated if this needs to change?
:)

As for 

/etc/bumblebee/xorg.conf.d/10-dummy.conf

I was told on IRC by one of the developers that:

01:00:20 AM) amonakov: gsgatlin: to make sure Xorg accepts the directory as a
xorg.conf.d directory. when I was reading the code, I got the impression that
if the dir was empty, the option would be ignored.

So that is why that particular file is being created. Because of Xorg. Hope
that helps explain it.

Please let me know if there are any changes I would need to make. Thanks a lot.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
Unsubscribe from this bug 
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=aHaSpdwfoDa=cc_unsubscribe
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 827167] Review Request: bumblebee - Bumblebee daemon

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=827167

--- Comment #28 from Gary Gatling gsgat...@ncsu.edu ---
Hello. Using systemd macros I cannot get this to work correctly. The problem
seems to be with this command:

if [ $1 -eq 1 ] ; then 
# Initial installation 
/usr/bin/systemctl preset bumblebeed.service /dev/null 21 || : 
fi

Which I think is expanded from %systemd_post bumblebeed.service

After I install the package, the bumblebeed service is not running and I have
to start it by hand every time I wish to use my nvidia graphics card with the
following command:

[root@localhost ~]# systemctl start bumblebeed.service

I need for this service to be enabled and running by default after it is
installed so I don't have to do that. How do I do that using approved of
methods? Is there some other daemon that also includes upstart and systemd init
scripts I could look at as an example? Is there a centralized list of services
that bumblebeed need to be added to to make it auto startup?

Thank you for your time and consideration.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
Unsubscribe from this bug 
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=DmwrBv6XI8a=cc_unsubscribe
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 827167] Review Request: bumblebee - Bumblebee daemon

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=827167

--- Comment #26 from Gary Gatling gsgat...@ncsu.edu ---
Christopher,

Thanks so much for taking the time to review my package. Here is another
attempt at fixing the problems with it:


http://install.linux.ncsu.edu/pub/yum/itecs/public/bumblebee/fedora19/spec/1/bumblebee.spec

http://install.linux.ncsu.edu/pub/yum/itecs/public/bumblebee/fedora19/SRPMS/bumblebee-3.2.1-2.fc19.src.rpm

Cheers,

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
Unsubscribe from this bug 
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=FNVZrhEa62a=cc_unsubscribe
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 827167] Review Request: bumblebee - Bumblebee daemon

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=827167

--- Comment #27 from Christopher Meng cicku...@gmail.com ---
I think you don't have to include f17 systemd scripts as now is 19 and 17 is
EOL.

Besides it's a pain to read so many shell scripts ;)

Another issue is :

bumblebee.i686: E: zero-length /etc/bumblebee/xorg.conf.d/10-dummy.conf

Why is it zero-length?

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
Unsubscribe from this bug 
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=iWgMzYMeXma=cc_unsubscribe
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 827167] Review Request: bumblebee - Bumblebee daemon

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=827167

Christopher Meng cicku...@gmail.com changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
   Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|cicku...@gmail.com
  Flags||fedora-review?

--- Comment #24 from Christopher Meng cicku...@gmail.com ---
Issues:

1. You shouldn't mark manpages as %doc

2. RPM supports systemd macro, which can make your spec more clear.

http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:ScriptletSnippets#Systemd

3. You should remove buildroot tag.

4. These lines:

mv $RPM_BUILD_DIR/%{name}-%{version}/configure.ac
$RPM_BUILD_DIR/%{name}-%{version}/configure-fix.ac
sed -e s|2.68|2.63|g $RPM_BUILD_DIR/%{name}-%{version}/configure-fix.ac 
$RPM_BUILD_DIR/%{name}-%{version}/configure.ac

Well, why not using this:

sed -e s|2.68|2.63|g configure.ac

5. This line:

install -m 755 $RPM_BUILD_DIR/%{name}-%{version}/bumblebeed.svinit
$RPM_BUILD_ROOT/%{_initddir}/bumblebeed

should be 

install -pm 755 $RPM_BUILD_DIR/%{name}-%{version}/bumblebeed.svinit
$RPM_BUILD_ROOT/%{_initddir}/bumblebeed

6. This line:

install -m 644
$RPM_BUILD_DIR/%{name}-%{version}/scripts/systemd/bumblebeed.service
$RPM_BUILD_ROOT/%{_unitdir}/

Why not using

install -pm 644 scripts/systemd/bumblebeed.service $RPM_BUILD_ROOT/%{_unitdir}/

7. And this:

cp $RPM_BUILD_DIR/%{name}-%{version}/conf/%{name}.conf
$RPM_BUILD_ROOT/%{_sysconfdir}/bumblebee/%{name}-nouveau.conf

Why not

cp conf/%{name}.conf
$RPM_BUILD_ROOT/%{_sysconfdir}/bumblebee/%{name}-nouveau.conf

As you can see there are many such lines, I don't know why you waste a lot of
lines...I hope all lines with RPM_BUILD_DIR should be modified.

--- Comment #25 from Christopher Meng cicku...@gmail.com ---
Issues:

1. You shouldn't mark manpages as %doc

2. RPM supports systemd macro, which can make your spec more clear.

http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:ScriptletSnippets#Systemd

3. You should remove buildroot tag.

4. These lines:

mv $RPM_BUILD_DIR/%{name}-%{version}/configure.ac
$RPM_BUILD_DIR/%{name}-%{version}/configure-fix.ac
sed -e s|2.68|2.63|g $RPM_BUILD_DIR/%{name}-%{version}/configure-fix.ac 
$RPM_BUILD_DIR/%{name}-%{version}/configure.ac

Well, why not using this:

sed -e s|2.68|2.63|g configure.ac

5. This line:

install -m 755 $RPM_BUILD_DIR/%{name}-%{version}/bumblebeed.svinit
$RPM_BUILD_ROOT/%{_initddir}/bumblebeed

should be 

install -pm 755 $RPM_BUILD_DIR/%{name}-%{version}/bumblebeed.svinit
$RPM_BUILD_ROOT/%{_initddir}/bumblebeed

6. This line:

install -m 644
$RPM_BUILD_DIR/%{name}-%{version}/scripts/systemd/bumblebeed.service
$RPM_BUILD_ROOT/%{_unitdir}/

Why not using

install -pm 644 scripts/systemd/bumblebeed.service $RPM_BUILD_ROOT/%{_unitdir}/

7. And this:

cp $RPM_BUILD_DIR/%{name}-%{version}/conf/%{name}.conf
$RPM_BUILD_ROOT/%{_sysconfdir}/bumblebee/%{name}-nouveau.conf

Why not

cp conf/%{name}.conf
$RPM_BUILD_ROOT/%{_sysconfdir}/bumblebee/%{name}-nouveau.conf

As you can see there are many such lines, I don't know why you waste a lot of
lines...I hope all lines with RPM_BUILD_DIR should be modified.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
Unsubscribe from this bug 
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=ruz43Q5KOta=cc_unsubscribe
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 827167] Review Request: bumblebee - Bumblebee daemon

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=827167

Christopher Meng cicku...@gmail.com changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
   Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|cicku...@gmail.com
  Flags||fedora-review?

--- Comment #24 from Christopher Meng cicku...@gmail.com ---
Issues:

1. You shouldn't mark manpages as %doc

2. RPM supports systemd macro, which can make your spec more clear.

http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:ScriptletSnippets#Systemd

3. You should remove buildroot tag.

4. These lines:

mv $RPM_BUILD_DIR/%{name}-%{version}/configure.ac
$RPM_BUILD_DIR/%{name}-%{version}/configure-fix.ac
sed -e s|2.68|2.63|g $RPM_BUILD_DIR/%{name}-%{version}/configure-fix.ac 
$RPM_BUILD_DIR/%{name}-%{version}/configure.ac

Well, why not using this:

sed -e s|2.68|2.63|g configure.ac

5. This line:

install -m 755 $RPM_BUILD_DIR/%{name}-%{version}/bumblebeed.svinit
$RPM_BUILD_ROOT/%{_initddir}/bumblebeed

should be 

install -pm 755 $RPM_BUILD_DIR/%{name}-%{version}/bumblebeed.svinit
$RPM_BUILD_ROOT/%{_initddir}/bumblebeed

6. This line:

install -m 644
$RPM_BUILD_DIR/%{name}-%{version}/scripts/systemd/bumblebeed.service
$RPM_BUILD_ROOT/%{_unitdir}/

Why not using

install -pm 644 scripts/systemd/bumblebeed.service $RPM_BUILD_ROOT/%{_unitdir}/

7. And this:

cp $RPM_BUILD_DIR/%{name}-%{version}/conf/%{name}.conf
$RPM_BUILD_ROOT/%{_sysconfdir}/bumblebee/%{name}-nouveau.conf

Why not

cp conf/%{name}.conf
$RPM_BUILD_ROOT/%{_sysconfdir}/bumblebee/%{name}-nouveau.conf

As you can see there are many such lines, I don't know why you waste a lot of
lines...I hope all lines with RPM_BUILD_DIR should be modified.

--- Comment #25 from Christopher Meng cicku...@gmail.com ---
Issues:

1. You shouldn't mark manpages as %doc

2. RPM supports systemd macro, which can make your spec more clear.

http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:ScriptletSnippets#Systemd

3. You should remove buildroot tag.

4. These lines:

mv $RPM_BUILD_DIR/%{name}-%{version}/configure.ac
$RPM_BUILD_DIR/%{name}-%{version}/configure-fix.ac
sed -e s|2.68|2.63|g $RPM_BUILD_DIR/%{name}-%{version}/configure-fix.ac 
$RPM_BUILD_DIR/%{name}-%{version}/configure.ac

Well, why not using this:

sed -e s|2.68|2.63|g configure.ac

5. This line:

install -m 755 $RPM_BUILD_DIR/%{name}-%{version}/bumblebeed.svinit
$RPM_BUILD_ROOT/%{_initddir}/bumblebeed

should be 

install -pm 755 $RPM_BUILD_DIR/%{name}-%{version}/bumblebeed.svinit
$RPM_BUILD_ROOT/%{_initddir}/bumblebeed

6. This line:

install -m 644
$RPM_BUILD_DIR/%{name}-%{version}/scripts/systemd/bumblebeed.service
$RPM_BUILD_ROOT/%{_unitdir}/

Why not using

install -pm 644 scripts/systemd/bumblebeed.service $RPM_BUILD_ROOT/%{_unitdir}/

7. And this:

cp $RPM_BUILD_DIR/%{name}-%{version}/conf/%{name}.conf
$RPM_BUILD_ROOT/%{_sysconfdir}/bumblebee/%{name}-nouveau.conf

Why not

cp conf/%{name}.conf
$RPM_BUILD_ROOT/%{_sysconfdir}/bumblebee/%{name}-nouveau.conf

As you can see there are many such lines, I don't know why you waste a lot of
lines...I hope all lines with RPM_BUILD_DIR should be modified.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
Unsubscribe from this bug 
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=qYsRzScfzxa=cc_unsubscribe
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 827167] Review Request: bumblebee - Bumblebee daemon

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=827167

Christopher Meng cicku...@gmail.com changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 CC||cicku...@gmail.com

--- Comment #21 from Christopher Meng cicku...@gmail.com ---
Any news here?

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
Unsubscribe from this bug 
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=ip1elvYWdea=cc_unsubscribe
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 827167] Review Request: bumblebee - Bumblebee daemon

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=827167

Björn Esser bjoern.es...@gmail.com changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 CC||bjoern.es...@gmail.com

--- Comment #22 from Björn Esser bjoern.es...@gmail.com ---
Since I currently have some reviews running, I'll take care of this one here
maybe on next week or so...

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
Unsubscribe from this bug 
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=yWZdPndTsKa=cc_unsubscribe
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 827167] Review Request: bumblebee - Bumblebee daemon

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=827167

--- Comment #23 from Gary Gatling gsgat...@ncsu.edu ---
Hello. Thank you. Here is the newest (current) version of the software I made a
package for.


http://install.linux.ncsu.edu/pub/yum/itecs/public/bumblebee/fedora18/spec/1/bumblebee.spec

http://install.linux.ncsu.edu/pub/yum/itecs/public/bumblebee/fedora18/SRPMS/bumblebee-3.2.1-1.fc18.src.rpm

Unfortunately, it (or any older versions) doesn't work with the nouveau driver
due to issue 298.

https://github.com/Bumblebee-Project/Bumblebee/issues/298

bumblebee does seem to work still with the closed source nvidia drivers.
Waiting to hear back from the bumblebee developers (in that issue) on whether
PRIME could be what is making it not work. So far no one has been able to
figure it out. :( 
(I opened the bug at github when fedora 18 was still in beta...)

Maybe someone looking at this bugzilla might be able to figure it out if they
are hard core into graphics technology? I can't figure it out sadly. Seems to
also be broken in the fedora 19 alpha and recently in fedora 17 as well.
Cheers,

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
Unsubscribe from this bug 
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=2OEbbIwxY7a=cc_unsubscribe
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 827167] Review Request: bumblebee - Bumblebee daemon

[bugzilla]

Product: Fedora
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=827167

--- Comment #20 from Gary Gatling gsgat...@ncsu.edu ---
Here is attempt #4 at a package. This is the new version, 3.1.

http://install.linux.ncsu.edu/pub/yum/itecs/public/bumblebee/fedora18/spec/2/bumblebee.spec

http://install.linux.ncsu.edu/pub/yum/itecs/public/bumblebee/fedora18/SRPMS/   
bumblebee-3.1-1.fc18.src.rpm

Thanks for your consideration.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
Unsubscribe from this bug 
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=I3GDc3H0tIa=cc_unsubscribe
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 827167] Review Request: bumblebee - Bumblebee daemon

[bugzilla]

Product: Fedora
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=827167

Rex Dieter rdie...@math.unl.edu changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 CC||rdie...@math.unl.edu
 Blocks||177841 (FE-NEEDSPONSOR)

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
Unsubscribe from this bug 
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=ArDcSX2zKTa=cc_unsubscribe
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 827167] Review Request: bumblebee - Bumblebee daemon

[bugzilla]

Product: Fedora
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=827167

Rex Dieter rdie...@math.unl.edu changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Blocks|177841 (FE-NEEDSPONSOR) |

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
Unsubscribe from this bug 
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=TeVJlMOKmha=cc_unsubscribe
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 827167] Review Request: bumblebee - Bumblebee daemon

[bugzilla]

Product: Fedora
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=827167

--- Comment #18 from Gary Gatling gsgat...@ncsu.edu ---
http://install.linux.ncsu.edu/pub/yum/itecs/public/bumblebee/fedora17/spec/5/bumblebee.spec

http://install.linux.ncsu.edu/pub/yum/itecs/public/bumblebee/fedora18/SRPMS/bumblebee-3.0.1-2.fc18.src.rpm

Adds patch for issues with kernel 3.7.6-202. See:

https://github.com/Bumblebee-Project/Bumblebee/issues/283

for a discussion on the issue this patch fixes. Special thanks to Theodore Lee
for doing all the work on this issue with the newest kernel in fedora and also
for fixing the missing BuildRequires for autoconf, automake, and libX11-devel.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
Unsubscribe from this bug 
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=XvukLR9Hnya=cc_unsubscribe
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 827167] Review Request: bumblebee - Bumblebee daemon

[bugzilla]

Product: Fedora
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=827167

--- Comment #19 from Gary Gatling gsgat...@ncsu.edu ---
Created attachment 694937
  -- https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=694937action=edit
fixes bug with race condition

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
Unsubscribe from this bug 
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=0Qkb8R2fDUa=cc_unsubscribe
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 827167] Review Request: bumblebee - Bumblebee daemon

[bugzilla]

Product: Fedora
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=827167

Bug 827167 depends on bug 834127, which changed state.

Bug 834127 Summary: Review Request: VirtualGL - A toolkit for displaying OpenGL 
applications to thin clients
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=834127

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|ON_QA   |CLOSED
 Resolution|--- |CURRENTRELEASE

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
Unsubscribe from this bug 
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=vGPA7kNedQa=cc_unsubscribe
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 827167] Review Request: bumblebee - Bumblebee daemon

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=827167

--- Comment #17 from Gary Gatling gsgat...@ncsu.edu ---
http://install.linux.ncsu.edu/pub/yum/itecs/public/bumblebee/fedora17/spec/4/bumblebee.spec

http://install.linux.ncsu.edu/pub/yum/itecs/public/bumblebee/fedora17/SRPMS/bumblebee-3.0.1-1.fc17.src.rpm

Update bumblebee package and specfile to version 3.0.1.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 827167] Review Request: bumblebee - Bumblebee daemon

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=827167

Gary Gatling gsgat...@ncsu.edu changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Blocks|177841 (FE-NEEDSPONSOR) |

--- Comment #16 from Gary Gatling gsgat...@ncsu.edu ---
Greetings, Attempt #3 at a package.

http://install.linux.ncsu.edu/pub/yum/itecs/public/bumblebee/fedora17/spec/3/bumblebee.spec

http://install.linux.ncsu.edu/pub/yum/itecs/public/bumblebee/fedora17/SRPMS/bumblebee-3.0.0-3.fc17.src.rpm

I got rid of conditional build stuff since the stack smashing is a real bug.
Instead there is a patch now for that.

I still get warnings with rpmlint but I think they are ok to ignore?

bumblebee.x86_64: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib

I think this is ok becuase of
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=794777

If this is in fact a problem, does anyone know of a workaround for a unit-file?

bumblebee.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary bumblebee-bugreport

Yeah, they didn't provide a man page for this binary upstream.

bumblebee.x86_64: W: dangerous-command-in-%trigger ln
bumblebee.x86_64: W: dangerous-command-in-%trigger ln

My understanding is that this is the proper way to do what I'm trying to do...
I need to change where a symlink points, but only if another package:
bumblebee-nvidia is installed. So thats why I used triggers. If there is a
better way to do this does anyone know what it is?

1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 4 warnings.

Kind of stuck on things with VirtualGL but I did want to fix the problems this
bumblebee package has. Further suggestions welcome.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 827167] Review Request: bumblebee - Bumblebee daemon

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=827167

Laurent Boualit lolob...@gmail.com changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 CC||lolob...@gmail.com

--- Comment #14 from Laurent Boualit lolob...@gmail.com ---
Hi, someone is working on this here http://downloads.aelys-info.net/fedora/

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 827167] Review Request: bumblebee - Bumblebee daemon

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=827167

--- Comment #15 from Gary Gatling gsgat...@ncsu.edu ---
Hi Laurent,

Check out:

http://techies.ncsu.edu/wiki/bumblebee

Feel free to use any of those packages/specs at that aelys project. That is my
test repo and early attempt at documentation. I am hoping to work some on
bumblebee and VirtualGL spec files some today on my day off. :)

Cheers,

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 827167] Review Request: bumblebee - Bumblebee daemon

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=827167

Orion Poplawski or...@cora.nwra.com changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 CC||or...@cora.nwra.com
 Blocks|834127  |
 Depends On||834127

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 827167] Review Request: bumblebee - Bumblebee daemon

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=827167

Matthias Runge mru...@matthias-runge.de changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 CC||mru...@matthias-runge.de
 Blocks||834127

--- Comment #13 from Matthias Runge mru...@matthias-runge.de ---
Hey Gary,

in order to get sponsored, you should show, you're familiar with the packaging
guidelines. Easiest way is to do some informal reviews as mentioned [1] and
link them e.g. here.

A potential sponsor can use this as easy reference, but esp. this may differ
from sponsor to sponsor.

[1]
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/How_to_get_sponsored_into_the_packager_group#Reviewing_packages

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 827167] Review Request: bumblebee - Bumblebee daemon

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=827167

Matthias Runge mru...@matthias-runge.de changed:

   What|Removed |Added

  Component|0x  |Package Review

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 827167] Review Request: bumblebee - Bumblebee daemon

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=827167

Gary Gatling gsgat...@eos.ncsu.edu changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 CC||dw...@infradead.org
  Component|Package Review  |0x

--- Comment #12 from Gary Gatling gsgat...@eos.ncsu.edu ---
OK. VirtualGL added as review request at:

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=834127

Again, thanks so much Robin!

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 827167] Review Request: bumblebee - Bumblebee daemon

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=827167

--- Comment #10 from Brendan Jones brendan.jones...@gmail.com ---
epel6 is what you use for building on RHEL. You can test it using mock or 
koji build --scratch dist-6E-epel some-package-srpm

You still need to pass %optflags to all your other make lines

I wouldn't concern your self with Fedora 15 - its reaching ending of life right
now and no more builds are being accepted for it in Fedora.

the -fno-stack-protector is correct - GC gives the last option precendence.
This also works but I think is a little messy:
CFLAGS=`echo %{optflags}|sed  -e 's|-fstack-protector|-fno-stack-protector|'`

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 827167] Review Request: bumblebee - Bumblebee daemon

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=827167

--- Comment #11 from Gary Gatling gsgat...@eos.ncsu.edu ---
Hello. This is attempt #2.


SRPM:
http://install.linux.ncsu.edu/pub/yum/itecs/public/bumblebee/fedora17/SRPMS/bumblebee-3.0.0-2.fc17.src.rpm

Specfile:
http://install.linux.ncsu.edu/pub/yum/itecs/public/bumblebee/fedora17/spec/2/bumblebee.spec

This also fixes a problem with the manpages being left off that I missed
before.

Thanks a lot.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 827167] Review Request: bumblebee - Bumblebee daemon

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=827167

--- Comment #7 from Gary Gatling gsgat...@eos.ncsu.edu ---
Stupid question...

How can I redifine:


%{optflags}

so that -fstack-protector is not included on 32 bit rhel 6? Nothing I am trying
is working...

Like:

%define optflags -O2 -g -pipe -Wall -Wp,-D_FORTIFY_SOURCE=2 -fexceptions
--param=ssp-buffer-size=4 -m32 -march=i686 -mtune=atom
-fasynchronous-unwind-tables -m32 -march=i686 -mtune=atom
-fasynchronous-unwind-tables
make %{?_smp_mflags} CFLAGS=%{optflags}

or 

%define __global_cflags -O2 -g -pipe -Wall -Wp,-D_FORTIFY_SOURCE=2 -fexceptions
--param=ssp-buffer-size=4 -m32 -march=i686 -mtune=atom
-fasynchronous-unwind-tables
make %{?_smp_mflags} CFLAGS=%{optflags}

still doesn't work. It compiles a buggy binary with -fstack-protector on rhel 6
32 bit. only with:


make %{?_smp_mflags} CFLAGS=-O2 -g -pipe -Wall -Wp,-D_FORTIFY_SOURCE=2
-fexceptions --param=ssp-buffer-size=4 -m32 -march=i686 -mtune=atom
-fasynchronous-unwind-tables

does it build correctly.

Any help greatly appriciated as this is my first package.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 827167] Review Request: bumblebee - Bumblebee daemon

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=827167

--- Comment #8 from Brendan Jones brendan.jones...@gmail.com ---

Look here: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:DistTag#Conditionals

You could try something like

%ifarch x86
%define nostack %{?el6: -fno-stack-protector}
%endif

CFLAGS=%optflags %{?nostack}

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 827167] Review Request: bumblebee - Bumblebee daemon

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=827167

--- Comment #9 from Gary Gatling gsgat...@eos.ncsu.edu ---
Thank you so much. This got me in the right direction. Through trial and 
error this seems to be the thing that works. If you leave out 


%define __global_cflags -O2 -g -pipe -Wall -Wp,-D_FORTIFY_SOURCE=2 -fexceptions
--param=ssp-buffer-size=4 -m32 -march=i686 -mtune=atom
-fasynchronous-unwind-tables

It does 

-fstack-protector and -fno-stack-protector in the same line which seems wrong.
Also, this bug should affect older fedoras on 32 bit as well as rhel6. 

Also, I had to use 

%ifarch i686

becuase 

%ifarch x86

did not work with my rhel6 build area. 

So I went with the following:

%ifarch i686
%if 0%{?fedora} =15
make %{?_smp_mflags}
%else
%define __global_cflags -O2 -g -pipe -Wall -Wp,-D_FORTIFY_SOURCE=2 -fexceptions
--param=ssp-buffer-size=4
%define nostack -fno-stack-protector
make %{?_smp_mflags} CFLAGS=%{optflags} %{?nostack}
%endif
%else
make %{?_smp_mflags}
%endif



Which seems to do the right thing on all platforms.

I am continuing to work on fixing the specfile and should have something to
post soon.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 827167] Review Request: bumblebee - Bumblebee daemon

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=827167

--- Comment #6 from Gary Gatling gsgat...@eos.ncsu.edu ---
Robin, Thanks so much for all your help! I was not expecting this to be so pain
free.

I have the new VirtualGL rpms built for fedora 17, 16, 15 and RHEL 6 and in my
test repo. I am testing it on my main system today (rhel 6) and will test
further on the various fedoras later today and tomorrow. It builds great and I
will submit it as a review request as soon as I finish testing it and I can
contact the VirtualGL developers like I did the bumblebee folks.

I'm still working on implementing the changes that Brendan suggested. I should
have something to post up here soon after I get the VirtualGL stuff worked out.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 827167] Review Request: bumblebee - Bumblebee daemon

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=827167

Robin Lee robinlee.s...@gmail.com changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 CC||robinlee.s...@gmail.com

--- Comment #5 from Robin Lee robinlee.s...@gmail.com ---
I made a specfile file for VirtualGL months ago:
http://cheeselee.fedorapeople.org/VirtualGL.spec

The %build section is simply:

%cmake -DTJPEG_INCLUDE_DIR=%{_includedir} \
   -DTJPEG_LIBRARY=%{_libdir}/libturbojpeg.so \
   -DVGL_USESSL=ON -DVGL_LIBDIR=%{_libdir} \
   -DVGL_DOCDIR=%{_docdir}/%{name}-%{version}/ \
   -DVGL_FAKELIBDIR=%{_libdir}/fakelib/ .
make %{?_smp_mflags}

Then VirtualGL will link with libturbojpeg. I don't have time to test VirtualGL
a little more at this moment. Feel free to submit review request of VirtualGL
based on my specfile.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 827167] Review Request: bumblebee - Bumblebee daemon

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=827167

Brendan Jones brendan.jones...@gmail.com changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 CC||brendan.jones...@gmail.com

--- Comment #1 from Brendan Jones brendan.jones...@gmail.com ---
Hi Gary

I'm no sponsor, but I do have this hardware so happy to help out where I can.

You'll need to package VirtualGL first.

A few quick recommendations on the SPEC
 - use macros whereever possible ie. %name.conf %name. for bumblebee
 - drop GNU from the license
 - move the URL from the description to the URL tag e.g.
URL:http://%{name}-project.org/
 - align all your tags as the previous example for readablity
 - use %{optflags} in place of the CFLAGS you've specified
 - %{sysconfigdir} for /etc %{prefix} for /usr %{_libdir|, %{_bindir} etc
whereerver possible http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:RPMMacros
 - create a Source1: for your sysv init script 
 - %clean is only required for EPEL5, similarly rm -rf in %install section, if
you do not intend to build for EPEL5 reomve them 
 - %defattr no longer required

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 827167] Review Request: bumblebee - Bumblebee daemon

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=827167

Mohamed El Morabity pikachu.2...@gmail.com changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 CC||pikachu.2...@gmail.com

--- Comment #2 from Mohamed El Morabity pikachu.2...@gmail.com ---
Is it possible to get the .spec file elsewhere than from pastebin? For example
on the server where you put your packages. Having a direct link on it may be
easier for those who want to review your work... Especially when pastebin and
such are blocked from work.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 827167] Review Request: bumblebee - Bumblebee daemon

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=827167

--- Comment #3 from Gary Gatling gsgat...@eos.ncsu.edu ---
Hello,

Thank you for your consideration. I have placed the spec file as it is now at:


http://install.linux.ncsu.edu/pub/yum/itecs/public/bumblebee/fedora17/spec/bumblebee.spec

to make it easier to read.

I will work this weekend to make the changes suggested by Brendan. Thank you
for all the suggestions.

One problem I am having is that the VirtualGL rpm that was packaged by PUIAS
Linux or the package made by http://www.virtualgl.org/ will not build without a
older libjpeg-turbo-1.1.1-1.1 (also from  PUIAS Linux) installed. The problem
was that VirtualGL wants a libturbojpeg.a in the building process...

Perhaps I should wait a while before this could be accepted and work more on
the VirtualGL problem? Perhaps I could make a libjpeg-turbo-1.1.1-1.1 that
installs in /opt or some other place just to get VirtualGL to compile? Or is
that a bad idea? The libjpeg-turbo that comes with fedora 17 doesn't have a
libturbojpeg.a in libjpeg-turbo-static and if you make a symlink it still won't
compile. :(

The sources to the VirtualGL I was using are in that same directory but to
build it I had to use rpm -Uvh --oldpackage libjpeg-turbo-1.1.1-1.1* and I know
that would not be cool. Also, bumblebee doesn't even use libjpeg-turbo but I
couldn't figure out how to build  VirtualGL without that. Sorry about these
issues.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 827167] Review Request: bumblebee - Bumblebee daemon

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=827167

--- Comment #4 from Brendan Jones brendan.jones...@gmail.com ---
I wouldn't spend to much time on this until you can build VirtualGL first.

Perhaps you could patch VirtualGL to use the version that is Fedora and submit
it upstream?

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 827167] Review Request: bumblebee - Bumblebee daemon

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=827167

Gary Gatling gsgat...@eos.ncsu.edu changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Blocks||177841

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review