Re: x264 and ffmpeg - here we go again
W dniu 30.10.2013 22:18, Nicolas Chauvet pisze: 2013/10/30 Sérgio Basto ser...@serjux.com mailto:ser...@serjux.com On Qua, 2013-10-30 at 07:22 +0100, Julian Sikorski wrote: W dniu 29.10.2013 22:11, Sérgio Basto pisze: On Ter, 2013-10-29 at 14:32 -0600, Ken Dreyer wrote: If we push ffmpeg 2.1 before we branch, we would ship F20 with a broken VLC, in that case? No, of course we won't ship VLC broken . We just ship F20 in day of release or very closer until then we have time to fix VLC . I have just confirmed that VLC is not broken, it builds. I have cooked up a mock config containing a mix of F20 fedora repos and rawhide rpmfusion ones, and VLC was built successfully. I am rebuilding everything else as we speak. The results are likely to be even better than before, but I would like to be absolutely certain. Hi x264 stable git version just updated, some minutes ago , so I have x264-0.138-1.20131030gitc628e3b.fc19.src.rpm to submit . May be do all mass rebuild together we will have less work , what do you think ? About if we submit or not ? , don't want sounds rude, but my opinion is : what we are waiting for ? :) May I bootstrap x264 ? I'm not against it, but I should mention that there are few runtime issue that can arise even if the package is building fine. (such the one described in the ffmpeg2theora bugreport). There is also an issue with gpac that trigger a patch in x264. I really think gpac is culpid here (and shouldn't rely on libpng or else). Any chances to fix it on your side ? Beside that I'm fine with the update. Vlc 2.1.1 should rise-up soon, but the rdp API issue that is only in rawhide will not be fixed. librdp failed to version it's api appropriately. Thx for the hard work. Nicolas (kwizart) With librdp out of the way, it looks as follows: $ find -name success | sort ./audacious-plugins-freeworld-3.4.1-1.fc20/success ./chromaprint-tools-1.0-2.fc20/success ./dvbcut-0.6.1-14.svn179.fc20/success ./dvdstyler-2.6-0.1_rc2.fc20/success ./ffmpeg-2.1-1.fc20/success ./ffmpeg2theora-0.29-7.fc20/success ./ffmpegthumbs-4.11.1-1.fc20/success ./gpac-0.5.0-7.20130914svn.fc20/success ./guvcview-1.6.1-6.fc20/success ./libquicktime-1.2.4-12.fc20/success ./lightspark-0.7.2-4.20130827git.fc20/success ./minidlna-1.1.0-2.fc20/success ./mlt-0.9.0-1.fc20/success ./moc-2.5.0-0.10.beta1.fc20/success ./mpd-0.18-0.1.git0e0be02.fc20/success ./mplayer-1.1-14.20130811svn.fc20/success ./mpv-0.1.7-4.fc20/success ./openmw-0.26.0-6.fc20/success ./qmmp-plugins-freeworld-0.7.2-2.fc20/success ./vlc-2.1.0-2.fc20/success ./wxsvg-1.2.1-1.fc20/success ./x264-0.136-1.20131005git3361d59.fc20/success ./xbmc-13.0-0.1.Gotham_alpha8.fc20/success ./xine-lib-1.2.4-2.fc20/success $ find -name fail | sort ./acoustid-fingerprinter-0.6-5.fc20/fail ./bino-1.4.2-4.fc20/fail ./bombono-dvd-1.2.2-4.fc20/fail ./ffmpegthumbnailer-2.0.8-6.fc20/fail ./kmediafactory-0.8.1-9.fc20/fail If we do this, we should definitely do x264 first to save time. I think runtime issues can be taken care of later, given they don't break our buildroot. Best regards, Julian
Re: Non-redistributable packages: Skype, spotify, ...
Hello, On 30 October 2013 21:37, Simone Caronni negativ...@gmail.com wrote: On 30 October 2013 19:50, Alec Leamas leamas.a...@gmail.com wrote: You are most welcome! https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1023714 Taken. This time I will add also take a look on the bundled spec file and post any comment in the review. I will review it tomorrow early morning or my girlfriend will kill me :) sorry for the delay, I've been stuck in a meeting all day and finished now. In 45 minutes I need to leave, so I will do something today and continue tomorrow. Thanks, --Simone -- You cannot discover new oceans unless you have the courage to lose sight of the shore (R. W. Emerson). http://xkcd.com/229/ http://negativo17.org/
Re: Non-redistributable packages: Skype, spotify, ...
On 2013-10-31 15:52, Simone Caronni wrote: Hello, [cut] sorry for the delay, I've been stuck in a meeting all day and finished now. In 45 minutes I need to leave, so I will do something today and continue tomorrow. Thanks, --Simone Thanks again, and take your time! There is really no hurry, and the legal review is pending anyway. There is actually a risk that Spot blocks this package, although I doubt it. And even if he does, we can submit it to rpmfusion and re-use the review. Cheers! --alec
What left in mass rebuild x264/ffmpeg for F20
Long ago Nicolas wrote: 2013/9/30 Sérgio Basto sergio at serjux.com http://lists.rpmfusion.org/mailman/listinfo/rpmfusion-developers / Hi, checking whatrequires ffmpeg-libs and x264-libs, and can't install //[cut] // / Here is an updated list: acoustid-fingerprinter bino bombono-dvd Bombono is fixed. ffmpegthumbnailer mlt xbmc [cut] --alec
[Bug 2681] akmods for EL6
https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2681 Orion Poplawski or...@cora.nwra.com changed: What|Removed |Added CC||kwiz...@gmail.com, ||or...@cora.nwra.com Component|Review Request |akmods Version|Current |unspecified AssignedTo|rpmfusion-package-review@rp |hobbes1...@gmail.com |mfusion.org | Product|Package Reviews |Fedora -- 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 2681] akmods for EL6
https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2681 --- Comment #1 from Richard hobbes1...@gmail.com 2013-10-31 19:26:56 CET --- There was some discussion about this before but I'd have to find it in the list archives. I'm not sure it's really a problem, per se, but there is a major difference between EL based distro's and Fedora... Supposedly (I'm not an expert here) kernel ABI compatibility is maintained within a release (6.1, 6.2, etc) so the value of akmods on an EL based system is very much reduced, you would be rebuilding kernel modules every kernel upgrade when you don't need to. They use a similar method to akmods on ELRepo and use a different (but related) system to build kernel modules. What kmod are you in need of specifically? -- 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.
[Bug 2909] Review request: gtkradiant - Level design program for video games
https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2909
--- Comment #5 from Alberto bebo.s...@gmail.com 2013-11-01 00:54:10 CET ---
Hi!
SRPM:
http://sourceforge.net/projects/bebosudo-rpms/files/gtkradiant/F19/SRPMS/gtkradiant-1.6.4-1.20131031git.fc19.src.rpm/download
SPEC:
http://sourceforge.net/projects/bebosudo-rpms/files/gtkradiant/gtkradiant.spec/download
This is a fresh build of gtkradiant with some interesting improvements.
Here an extract trom the spec:
- added gtkradiant manual from the official website
- added LGPL and BSD to license field (see LICENSE file inside doc)
- added patch to allow the use of gtkradiant also on linux, else it wouldn't
work, due to permissions errors (goo.gl/G8xPKg)
- added a script launcher to fix the gamepacks
- split data in another package
- added libjped-turbo-devel as a buildrequire
and here the rpmlint on all the packages:
$ rpmlint -i
../RPMS/x86_64/gtkradiant-{,debuginfo-}1.6.4-1.20131030git.fc19.x86_64.rpm
../SRPMS/gtkradiant-1.6.4-1.20131030git.fc19.src.rpm gtkradiant.spec
gtkradiant.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/share/doc/gtkradiant-1.6.4/GPL
The Free Software Foundation address in this file seems to be outdated or
misspelled. Ask upstream to update the address, or if this is a license file,
possibly the entire file with a new copy available from the FSF.
gtkradiant.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address
/usr/share/doc/gtkradiant-1.6.4/LGPL
The Free Software Foundation address in this file seems to be outdated or
misspelled. Ask upstream to update the address, or if this is a license file,
possibly the entire file with a new copy available from the FSF.
gtkradiant.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary q3map2
Each executable in standard binary directories should have a man page.
gtkradiant.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary q3map2_urt
Each executable in standard binary directories should have a man page.
gtkradiant.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary gtkradiant
Each executable in standard binary directories should have a man page.
gtkradiant-debuginfo.x86_64: E: debuginfo-without-sources
This debuginfo package appears to contain debug symbols but no source files.
This is often a sign of binaries being unexpectedly stripped too early during
the build, or being compiled without compiler debug flags (which again often
is a sign of distro's default compiler flags ignored which might have security
consequences), or other compiler flags which result in rpmbuild's debuginfo
extraction not working as expected. Verify that the binaries are not
unexpectedly stripped and that the intended compiler flags are used.
(none): E: no installed packages by name
../SRPMS/gtkradiant-1.6.4-1.20131030git.fc19.src.rpm
gtkradiant.spec: W: invalid-url Source5: gtkradiant-manual-20131030.tar.gz
The value should be a valid, public HTTP, HTTPS, or FTP URL.
2 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 3 errors, 4 warnings.
The first two depend on the upstream license version.
the third and fourth don't have a manual page because are small utilities, and
the fifth, the gtkradiant exec, has an huge manual page in the %doc, so I don't
know why rpmlint complains.
sixth I don't know what to do.
seventh is right, because the source is made manually.
I know there is a lot of work to do, but would really appreciate it if someone
was interested in helping me.
Thanks,
Alberto
--
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 2909] Review request: gtkradiant - Level design program for video games
https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2909 Alberto bebo.s...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Depends on||3007 -- 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 3007] New: Review request: gtkradiant-data - Data files for the video games level editor
https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=3007 Bug #: 3007 Summary: Review request: gtkradiant-data - Data files for the video games level editor 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: bebo.s...@gmail.com CC: rpmfusion-package-rev...@rpmfusion.org Blocks: 2909 Spec URL: http://sourceforge.net/projects/bebosudo-rpms/files/gtkradiant-data/gtkradiant-data.spec/download SRPM URL: http://sourceforge.net/projects/bebosudo-rpms/files/gtkradiant-data/F19/SRPM/gtkradiant-data-1.6.4-1.20131030svn.fc19.src.rpm/download Description: Data files for the gtkradiant engine. This package is related with bug 2909, because unless this, the gtkradiant package is useless. I split the data in another package to manage it better. The license of these gamepacks are not certain, and this is the main reason I have to file this package in rpmfusion. I only found the quake3 sdk license, which I put in the package, but I'm not able to find the others. If you have any suggestion please share with me. Thanks, Alberto -- 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 Alberto bebo.s...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Depends on||2909 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the assignee for the bug.
[Bug 30] Tracker : Sponsorship Request
https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=30 Alberto bebo.s...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Depends on||3007 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the assignee for the bug.
[Bug 3007] Review request: gtkradiant-data - Data files for the video games level editor
https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=3007 Alberto bebo.s...@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.
Re: Non-redistributable packages: Skype, spotify, ...
Alec Leamas wrote: This outcome is kind of a surprise also for me; my gut feeling was that these packages would end up in rpmfusion. However, the decision is seemingly based on that lpf packages contains nothing from upstream and nothing binary. What they generate is another issue, but Spot's decision seems to be that doesn't really matter, it's not on Fedora servers. Huh? This is against: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Packages_which_are_not_useful_without_external_bits I'm going to complain about this to FPC, and if they ignore the issue, escalate it to FESCo. This kind of package has no business being in Fedora! Kevin Kofler
Re: Non-redistributable packages: Skype, spotify, ...
PS: I wrote: I'm going to complain about this to FPC, and if they ignore the issue, escalate it to FESCo. This kind of package has no business being in Fedora! https://fedorahosted.org/fpc/ticket/362 Kevin Kofler
Re: Non-redistributable packages: Skype, spotify, ...
On Fri, 2013-11-01 at 02:42 +0100, Kevin Kofler wrote: I wrote: I'm going to complain about this to FPC, and if they ignore the issue, escalate it to FESCo. This kind of package has no business being in Fedora! https://fedorahosted.org/fpc/ticket/362 Thank you for filing the ticket, Kevin. Even if lpf makes it easier for users to use skype/spotify/whatnot, it's promoting non-foss software. Not only is it against the packaging guidelines, it's quite against our foundation of freedom too. I think packaging stuff up for rpmfusion as we've already been doing is the way to go. [1] http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Foundations -- Thanks, Warm regards, Ankur (FranciscoD) http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Ankursinha Join Fedora! Come talk to us! http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_Join_SIG signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
