Re: rpms/VirtualBox/F-18 VirtualBox.spec, 1.17, 1.18 vboxweb.service, 1.1, 1.2
2012/9/15 Sérgio Basto ser...@serjux.com: On Sex, 2012-09-14 at 19:05 +0200, Nicolas Chauvet wrote: 2012/9/13 Sérgio M. Basto sergi...@rpmfusion.org: ... What does this 32bit support stands for ? Because usually we copy the produced binary -libs sub-package from the native 32bit tree to the x86_64 tree. This is done automatically by the multilib script from the infra side. VirtualBox for x86_64 on configure test if have 32-bit support , Checking for 32-bit support: OK. (on my mock build). and we patch the ./configure to not check that because it fails. I just want remove that patch and let VirtualBox configure him self without patching, seems to me better and closer to upstream, since it works on my mock builds. If it's only a test, there is no need to worry, you can create a disable 32bit test and submit it upstream. But you seems to say that there are no 32bit binaries produced elsewhere ? What this test is useful for ? Nicolas (kwizart)
[Bug 2455] Review request: pcsx2 - A Sony Playstation2 emulator
https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2455 --- Comment #26 from Andrea Musuruane musur...@gmail.com 2012-09-15 10:32:48 CEST --- (In reply to comment #25) Hum, be aware if you play with gcc flags to test completely PCSX2. PCSX2 is very sensible to gcc behavior and could break and crash very easily. I have enough report of real crashes ;) We are bound to Fedora guidelines and therefore we must use those flags. Not all i686 processors, like the AMD Geode LX (and this is currently shipped), support SSE or SSE2. And this is a problem for us. Geode isn't a good example in my opinion. PCSX2 is a real time application (like any games actually). You need to have a powerful enough CPU to run the application at a minimum speed. Current recommended setting is a dual core@3 GHz. The best geode is only 1 core@1.5 GHz, without sse2. This CPU is for embedded solution and low power application not for advance gaming. Again, it's not really our choice as we follow Fedora guidelines so we must support those CPUs. But that can even mean that the user is warned at runtime that he cannot run the emulator with his PC. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. You are the assignee for the bug.
[Bug 2455] Review request: pcsx2 - A Sony Playstation2 emulator
https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2455
--- Comment #27 from gregory.hain...@gmail.com 2012-09-15 11:50:12 CEST ---
Yes I know. It is the same for others distributions. Anyway what I wanted to
say is that you could use the flags but you must test them.
Actually we already do a check. Here the code snippet. Note that I can change
the warning message to a fatal error if you like (message was probably not
updated since the drop of scalar code).
static void CpuCheckSSE2()
{
if( x86caps.hasStreamingSIMD2Extensions ) return;
// Only check once per process session:
static bool checked = false;
if( checked ) return;
checked = true;
wxDialogWithHelpers exconf( NULL, _(PCSX2 - SSE2 Recommended) );
exconf += exconf.Heading( pxE( LWarning: Your computer does not support
SSE2, which is required by many PCSX2 recompilers and plugins. Your options
will be limited and emulation will be *very* slow. )
);
pxIssueConfirmation( exconf, MsgButtons().OK(), LError.Startup.NoSSE2 );
.
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are the assignee for the bug.
[Bug 2455] Review request: pcsx2 - A Sony Playstation2 emulator
https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2455 --- Comment #28 from Nicolas Chauvet kwiz...@gmail.com 2012-09-15 11:54:07 CEST --- (In reply to comment #26) (In reply to comment #25) Hum, be aware if you play with gcc flags to test completely PCSX2. PCSX2 is very sensible to gcc behavior and could break and crash very easily. I have enough report of real crashes ;) We are bound to Fedora guidelines and therefore we must use those flags. I'm sorry but I cannot parse that ! We are only bound to have a brain! and guidelines doesn't mean we cannot use our mind to solve specific situation. Specially my position was explained here: https://lists.rpmfusion.org/pipermail/rpmfusion-developers/2012-September/013443.html For this case it would simply means: - We need to use the fedora cflags by default - PCSX2 can enforce additional cflags (such as -sse2) IF when running on a CPU that doesn't have them, an error is properly output. That will make the package ExclusiveArch: i686. - If others cflags from fedora are producing issue with this package, then the cflags and the related error need to be sorted out from the spec file and linked to a bug report for a later resolution. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. You are the assignee for the bug.
[Bug 2455] Review request: pcsx2 - A Sony Playstation2 emulator
https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2455 --- Comment #29 from Nicolas Chauvet kwiz...@gmail.com 2012-09-15 12:01:29 CEST --- (In reply to comment #26) .. Again, it's not really our choice as we follow Fedora guidelines so we must support those CPUs. But that can even mean that the user is warned at runtime @Andrea, For your historical knowledge, the geode CPU support was mentioned because it was explicitly dropped from the kernel (or compiler/glibc) perspective on earlier fedora by the maintainer decision over a general agreement. It just mean this CPU is supported by our toolchain, not by every single packages out there. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. You are the assignee for the bug.
[Bug 2471] Review request: vo-amrwbenc - VisualOn Adaptive Multi Rate Wideband speech encoder
https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2471 Nicolas Chauvet kwiz...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |RESOLVED Resolution||FIXED --- Comment #1 from Nicolas Chauvet kwiz...@gmail.com 2012-09-15 15:21:45 CEST --- We already have this one in RPM Fusion free. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. You are the assignee for the bug.
[Bug 2473] Review request: gstreamer1-plugins-bad-freeworld - GStreamer 1.0 streaming media framework bad plug-ins
https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2473 Bug 2473 depends on bug 2471, which changed state. Bug 2471 Summary: Review request: vo-amrwbenc - VisualOn Adaptive Multi Rate Wideband speech encoder https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2471 What|Old Value |New Value Status|NEW |RESOLVED Resolution||FIXED -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. You are the assignee for the bug.
[Bug 2483] New: Review request: msttcore-fonts - TrueType core fonts for the web
https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2483 Bug #: 2483 Summary: Review request: msttcore-fonts - TrueType core fonts for the web Classification: Unclassified Product: Package Reviews Version: Current Platform: All OS/Version: GNU/Linux Status: NEW Severity: normal Priority: P5 Component: Review Request AssignedTo: rpmfusion-package-rev...@rpmfusion.org ReportedBy: janes@gmail.com CC: rpmfusion-package-rev...@rpmfusion.org spec file: https://downloads.sourceforge.net/project/mscorefonts2/specs/msttcore-fonts-2.1-2.spec Source rpm: no source rpm. there is no source, the microsoft eula doesn't allow distribution of the fonts with the rpm. rpm: https://downloads.sourceforge.net/project/mscorefonts2/rpms/msttcore-fonts-2.1-2.noarch.rpm Description: This provides the TrueType core fonts for the web that were once available from http://www.microsoft.com/typography/fontpack/ prior to 2002, and most recently updated in the European Union Expansion Update circa May 2007, still available on the Microsoft website. With this rpm the actual font cab files are downloaded from a Sourceforge project mirror and unpacked at install time. Therefore this package technically does not 'redistribute' the fonts. The fonts are then added to the core X fonts system as well as the Xft font system. These are the cab files downloaded: andale32.exe, arialb32.exe, comic32.exe, courie32.exe, georgi32.exe, impact32.exe, webdin32.exe, EUupdate.EXE, wd97vwr32.exe These cab files are only downloaded if EUupdate.EXE cannot be downloaded, since the EUupdate.EXE cab contains updates for the fonts in these cabs: arial32.exe, times32.exe, trebuc32.exe, verdan32.exe These are the fonts added: 1998 Andale Mono 2006 Arial: bold, bold italic, italic, regular 1998 Arial: black 1998 Comic: bold, regular 2000 Courier: bold, bold italic, italic, regular 1998 Impact 2006 Times: bold, bold italic, italic, regular 2006 Trebuchet: bold, bold italic, italic, regular 2006 Verdana: bold, bold italic, italic, regular 1998 Webdings Fedora eligibility: I haven't tried, but I assume licensing restrictions on the fonts would be an issue, although the fonts are not a part of the rpm. rpmlint: This is my first rpmfusion package I am seeking a sponsor. [ I think that's what I'm supposed to do ] -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. You are the assignee for the bug.
[Bug 2483] Review request: msttcore-fonts - TrueType core fonts for the web
https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2483 Rob Janes janes@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||2, 30 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. You are the assignee for the bug.
[Bug 30] Tracker : Sponsorship Request
https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=30 Rob Janes janes@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Depends on||2483 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the assignee for the bug.
[Bug 2474] Review request: gstreamer1-plugins-ugly - GStreamer 1.0 streaming media framework ugly plug-ins
https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2474 --- Comment #2 from Nicolas Chauvet kwiz...@gmail.com 2012-09-15 17:44:10 CEST --- (In reply to comment #1) ... As I said, I'm not a RPMFusion contributor, so I'm not sure whether I'm allowed to formally approve packages, but if I were, I'd approve it. As you are a Fedora contributor, you can formally approve any RPM Fusion package even if you don't have a rpmfusion fas account. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. You are the assignee for the bug.
[Bug 1742] Review Request: vo-aacenc - VisualOn AAC encoder library
https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1742 Tom thomasbel...@gmx.com changed: What|Removed |Added CC||thomasbel...@gmx.com --- Comment #16 from Tom thomasbel...@gmx.com 2012-09-15 22:09:40 CEST --- Please ask again. It's a pain creating a vo-aacenc package and adding --enable-libvo-aacenc --enable-version3 to ffmpeg spec just to convert video for my phone with Mobile Media Converter (another missing package). -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. You are the assignee for the bug.
[Bug 2483] Review request: msttcore-fonts - TrueType core fonts for the web
https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2483 Rex Dieter rdie...@math.unl.edu changed: What|Removed |Added CC||rdie...@math.unl.edu --- Comment #1 from Rex Dieter rdie...@math.unl.edu 2012-09-16 00:42:29 CEST --- the fonts are not redistributable even in rpm form. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. You are the assignee for the bug.
[Bug 2483] Review request: msttcore-fonts - TrueType core fonts for the web
https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2483 --- Comment #2 from Rob Janes janes@gmail.com 2012-09-16 00:48:44 CEST --- (In reply to comment #1) the fonts are not redistributable even in rpm form. I don't understand this comment. The fonts are not in the rpm. The resultant rpm is about 10k. The fonts are a few meg. Are you saying that the fonts cannot be downloaded by a script and installed on a system? Is the issue that you think the fonts are in the rpm? The description says the fonts are downloaded at install time. Would it help if I stated explicitly that the fonts are not in the rpm? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. You are the assignee for the bug.
[Bug 2483] Review request: msttcore-fonts - TrueType core fonts for the web
https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2483 --- Comment #3 from Rex Dieter rdie...@math.unl.edu 2012-09-16 00:53:49 CEST --- Oh, I misunderstood, not having looked at the .spec in question. So, yes, this could very well go into the rpmfusion nonfree section, given some work to make it comply with fedora's packaging guidelines. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. You are the assignee for the bug.
[Bug 2483] Review request: msttcore-fonts - TrueType core fonts for the web
https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2483 --- Comment #4 from Rob Janes janes@gmail.com 2012-09-16 01:00:31 CEST --- (In reply to comment #3) Oh, I misunderstood, not having looked at the .spec in question. So, yes, this could very well go into the rpmfusion nonfree section, given some work to make it comply with fedora's packaging guidelines. ok, great! I just ran rpmlint and am working on correcting the issues. If you have some suggestions on what to do to make it comply with fedora's packaging guidelines? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. You are the assignee for the bug.
