[Bug 3043] Review request: lfp-flash-plugin - Adobe Flash Player package bootstrap
https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=3043 --- Comment #1 from Simone Caronni negativ...@gmail.com 2013-11-25 09:27:34 CET --- spec: http://slaanesh.fedorapeople.org/lpf-flash-plugin.spec srpm: http://slaanesh.fedorapeople.org/lpf-flash-plugin-11.2.202.327-2.fc19.src.rpm Updated install, post and postun sections for the latest additions. -- 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 3048] Review request: SimpleScreenRecorder - screen recorder to record programs and games
https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=3048 --- Comment #6 from Alec Leamas leamas.a...@gmail.com 2013-11-25 15:48:35 CET --- Now I think the important pieces of the review request are in place. Obviously, you now need a sponsor. Please look into [1] on how to achieve this. This is written for fedora packages, but the basic task is the same in rpmfusion: you need to show that you understand the Packaging Guidelines. [1] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/How_to_get_sponsored_into_the_packager_group -- 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 3043] Review request: lfp-flash-plugin - Adobe Flash Player package bootstrap
https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=3043 Alec Leamas leamas.a...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Blocks|2 |3 AssignedTo|rpmfusion-package-review@rp |leamas.a...@gmail.com |mfusion.org | -- 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 3043] Review request: lfp-flash-plugin - Adobe Flash Player package bootstrap
https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=3043 --- Comment #2 from Nicolas Chauvet kwiz...@gmail.com 2013-11-25 22:59:52 CET --- - Why an epoch is set ? - Where is the mention that the produced package will either be i686 or x86_64 and not ppc/arm or else ? - Also the adobe repository allow to install the i686 version along with the x86_64. Is it still possible to do so with lfp? How ? - The license of the wrapper is MIT, but the resulting usable package will be Proprietary. I think we shouldn't abuse anyone with the license of the wrapped spec file. Specially MIT is the default license for spec files unless stated otherwise. But MIT from the spec was never added in the computation of the license field for all packages in the fedora collection. - Flash on linux, is unmaintained buggy ? Should we still advertise that, even by improving the packaging ? This will only hide misery. - I'm keen to have any patch to review for nvidia packaged driver - but that's unrelated to this bugreport ;) -- 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 3043] Review request: lfp-flash-plugin - Adobe Flash Player package bootstrap
https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=3043 --- Comment #3 from Sérgio Basto ser...@serjux.com 2013-11-25 23:18:58 CET --- (In reply to comment #2) - Why an epoch is set ? Simone wrote somewhere that is to overwrite the original -- 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 3043] Review request: lfp-flash-plugin - Adobe Flash Player package bootstrap
https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=3043 --- Comment #4 from Alec Leamas leamas.a...@gmail.com 2013-11-26 00:04:26 CET --- (In reply to comment #2) - Flash on linux, is unmaintained buggy ? Should we still advertise that, even by improving the packaging ? This will only hide misery. I can just agree. Still, it's the only solution to view a lot of copyrighted content out there. We all want HTML5 instead, but the practical alternative for copyrighted videos is often Silverlight (Netflix!), worse from a Linux perspective. So yes, IMHO flash in needed. And since it's needed it makes sense to package it (I actually asked Simone to make this request). As for the other issues, it will be handled in due time. The parallel i686/x86_64 installation will probably need an lpf update. Currently, we try to get skype and spotify the complete way before we push any more packages. The bottleneck is a badly required update to lpf, currently in updates-testing. Karma welcome! -- 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.
Re: Non-redistributable packages: Skype, spotify, ...
On Qui, 2013-11-21 at 10:43 +0100, Simone Caronni wrote: On 21 November 2013 10:22, Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski domi...@greysector.net wrote: That's very nice and I've been actually doing the same thing, but I don't advertise my repository on the open Internet, because distributing Adobe's Flash plugin is against the licence. Or do you have a special licence from Adobe to do so? Nope, no licence, in fact I'm planning to delete them after the lpf* packages are in. I discovered Alec's lpf work while proposing the packages to RPMFusion. Hi, back to this point , no license doesn't mean you can. At least, is what lawyers in my work said about other thing completely different. So or we have permission or is not authorized, but I'm not a lawyer . So I think we can call Adobe's Flash plugin not redistributable (by omission in license ?! ). Apart of this. RPMFusion have any other rule or restriction ? to not ship this kind of software ? , because already have a repo ? My idea was exactly not have to configure a dozen repositories, and eventually an rpmfusion remix have it all out of the box . -- Sérgio M. B.
Re: lpf-* packages review process.
On Sex, 2013-11-22 at 13:32 +0100, Alec Leamas wrote: With the lpf package under way to fedora stable and the first lpf-* packages on their way into rpmfusion there is an issue with the review process fo llpf-* packages (an lpf package). An lpf package is basically a wrapper for the spec for a target package. E. g. lpf-skype contains lpf.skype.spec and skype.spec.in (see [1]). Formally, when reviewing the lpf-skype package a reviewer should review the package spec i. e., lpf-skype.spec. However, this is just some copy-paste code which is more or less the same for all lpf packages. It's still evolving, but it should be more or less a non-issue when reviewing. However, each lpf package contains a target spec, skype.spec.in in the example. This is the real stuff, the package user installs after building it. IMHO, the target spec should be the real issue when reviewing. In a short perspective, I'm trying to keep this lpf thing in a limited number of hands, so this is not a concern right now. However, I think it's time to formalize this for rpmfusion. Since lpf packages are rpmfusion only, we cannot lean on the Fedora review guidelines for this. Even the tooling (fedora-review) is totally blind for the target package. Which boils down to a simple question: should we have a rpmfusion rule that when reviewing lpf packages the target spec and package should be reviewed somehow (as well as the normal spec, normally a non-issue)? Or should we just close our eyes, since we dont distribute the target packages? Hi, Brilliant idea !. Second though: I don't believe that lpf is made in bash, I know that you can do all with bash but so many lines!, it could be done in so many languages, I prefer Python , but with Perl you could do much more easy scripting . About yours questions, of course we have 2 reviews to do for each lpf-someting, spec.in have to be review and lpf package also, although could be done in same ticket. (we could review spec.in by running fedora-review with content downloaded). Of course we can write some notes on wiki of RPMFusion ruling this reviews, also good for our organization. Yes , we need do some rules :), for example seems to me that License of lpf-something.spec should be the license of something.spec.in , and others fields too. Cheers! --alec [1] https://github.com/leamas/lpf Cheers! -- Sérgio M. B.
repoview not being updated
Hi all, Can one of the admins please fix repoview updating, currently it is not being updated, ie: http://download1.rpmfusion.org/free/fedora/development/rawhide/x86_64/os/repoview/gstreamer1-libav.html Points to the quite old 1.1.3, rather then the less old 1.2.0, or the recent 1.2.1 Regards, Hans
Re: Non-redistributable packages: Skype, spotify, ...
On 26 November 2013 00:08, Sérgio Basto ser...@serjux.com wrote: Apart of this. RPMFusion have any other rule or restriction ? to not ship this kind of software ? , because already have a repo ? I've read the license text file and it seems that we can do what lpf package does, i.e. the user downloads and installs the package on its own system; so it should be coevered by the license. My idea was exactly not have to configure a dozen repositories, and eventually an rpmfusion remix have it all out of the box . Would like to as well. It's not like having the package downloaded through a yum repository, but it's better than nothing. Regards, --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/
