[Bug 3043] Review request: lfp-flash-plugin - Adobe Flash Player package bootstrap
https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=3043 Simone Caronni negativ...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||33 --- Comment #21 from Simone Caronni negativ...@gmail.com 2014-01-29 09:26:05 CET --- Package Change Request == Package Name: lpf-flash-plugin New Branches: el6 Updated RPMFusion Owners: leamas slaanesh sergiomb Updated EPEL Owners: leamas slaanesh sergiomb -- 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 3034] Review Request: lpf-skype: Skype internet phone client package bootstrap
https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=3034 Simone Caronni negativ...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||33 --- Comment #25 from Simone Caronni negativ...@gmail.com 2014-01-29 09:26:54 CET --- Package Change Request == Package Name: lpf-skype New Branches: el6 Updated EPEL Owners: leamas slaanesh -- 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 3110] Deploy the package gstreamer-plugins-bad in EL6 Repository (rpmfusion)
https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=3110 Simone Caronni negativ...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added CC||negativ...@gmail.com --- Comment #3 from Simone Caronni negativ...@gmail.com 2014-01-29 09:30:10 CET --- (In reply to comment #2) I'm going to close this bug as WONTFIX, but if anyone wants to step up and maintain gstreamer* packages for EL6, they are welcome to re-open and do just that. Hello, I would like to step in into mantaining the extra gstreamer packages for el6 (and el7 eventually). Can I proceed in asking permissions on the original Review Requests? -- 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 3155] Review request: pithos - Native Pandora Radio Client for Linux
https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=3155 Andrea Musuruane musur...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added CC||musur...@gmail.com Blocks||2 --- Comment #1 from Andrea Musuruane musur...@gmail.com 2014-01-29 09:32:41 CET --- This is the third review request opened for pithos. The others are #2577 and #1539. Usually the first review wins and the others are marked as duplicates. But it seems that the first is stalled. Please work with other submitters to have this software in RPM Fusion. Matias, because you are already sponsored in Fedora, you don't need to be sponsored in RPM Fusion. Moreover you can also review packages here in RPM Fusion. I suggest you to review one of the other requests. -- 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 3034] Review Request: lpf-skype: Skype internet phone client package bootstrap
https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=3034 --- Comment #26 from Simone Caronni negativ...@gmail.com 2014-01-29 09:43:31 CET --- Sorry, I used the Fedora branch name. Updated request: Package Change Request == Package Name: lpf-skype New Branches: EL-6 Updated EPEL Owners: leamas slaanesh -- 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 3110] Deploy the package gstreamer-plugins-bad in EL6 Repository (rpmfusion)
https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=3110 --- Comment #4 from Hans de Goede j.w.r.dego...@gmail.com 2014-01-29 09:55:52 CET --- (In reply to comment #3) (In reply to comment #2) I'm going to close this bug as WONTFIX, but if anyone wants to step up and maintain gstreamer* packages for EL6, they are welcome to re-open and do just that. Hello, I would like to step in into mantaining the extra gstreamer packages for el6 (and el7 eventually). Cool, thanks for working on this! Can I proceed in asking permissions on the original Review Requests? Yes feel free to do so. Please note that the gstreamer1-* packages need to be updated to the latest upstream, I've not gotten around to doing so yet. -- 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 3110] Deploy the package gstreamer-plugins-bad in EL6 Repository (rpmfusion)
https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=3110 --- Comment #5 from Simone Caronni negativ...@gmail.com 2014-01-29 10:45:37 CET --- (In reply to comment #4) Can I proceed in asking permissions on the original Review Requests? Yes feel free to do so. I can't find the original reviews for -ugly and -ffmpeg in bugzilla. Is this one the correct one for gstreamer-plugins-bad? https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1015 I would probably need another review request for getting CVS access as RHEL uses the old naming for gstreamer plugins and would require gstreamer-plugins-bad-nonfree: Available Packages gstreamer.i686 0.10.29-1.el6 base gstreamer.x86_64 0.10.29-1.el6 base gstreamer-devel.i686 0.10.29-1.el6 base gstreamer-devel.x86_64 0.10.29-1.el6 base gstreamer-devel-docs.noarch 0.10.29-1.el6 base gstreamer-java.x86_641.4-4.el6 epel gstreamer-java-javadoc.x86_641.4-4.el6 epel gstreamer-java-swt.x86_641.4-4.el6 epel gstreamer-plugins-bad-free.i686 0.10.19-2.el6 base gstreamer-plugins-bad-free.x86_640.10.19-2.el6 base gstreamer-plugins-bad-free-devel.i6860.10.19-2.el6 base gstreamer-plugins-bad-free-devel.x86_64 0.10.19-2.el6 base gstreamer-plugins-bad-free-devel-docs.x86_64 0.10.19-2.el6 base gstreamer-plugins-bad-free-extras.i686 0.10.19-2.el6 base gstreamer-plugins-bad-free-extras.x86_64 0.10.19-2.el6 base gstreamer-plugins-base.i686 0.10.29-2.el6 base gstreamer-plugins-base.x86_640.10.29-2.el6 base gstreamer-plugins-base-devel.i6860.10.29-2.el6 base gstreamer-plugins-base-devel.x86_64 0.10.29-2.el6 base gstreamer-plugins-base-devel-docs.noarch 0.10.29-2.el6 base gstreamer-plugins-good.i686 0.10.23-1.el6 base gstreamer-plugins-good.x86_640.10.23-1.el6 base gstreamer-plugins-good-devel.i6860.10.23-1.el6 base gstreamer-plugins-good-devel.x86_64 0.10.23-1.el6 base gstreamer-python.x86_64 0.10.16-1.1.el6 base gstreamer-python-devel.x86_640.10.16-1.1.el6 base gstreamer-tools.x86_64 0.10.29-1.el6 base Please note that the gstreamer1-* packages need to be updated to the latest upstream, I've not gotten around to doing so yet. RHEL is using version 0.10.0; do we need also gstreamer1-* packages? Can I also request CVS access to all gstreamer* packages for Fedora? Thanks regards, --Simone -- 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: [Bug 3152] Review request: dropbox-repo - 3rd-party repo package for Dropbox client
On 1/29/14, RPM Fusion Bugzilla nore...@rpmfusion.org wrote: https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=3152 --- Comment #38 from Sérgio Basto ser...@serjux.com 2014-01-29 08:56:22 CET --- (In reply to comment #30) Less legal/policy concerns but will give more work to develop. Not necessarily. See spot's comment in comment #31 link. Basically, if we just points to a repo provided by an ISV like Dropbox it's actually the ISV which is distributing. If we repackage it we becomes more responsible for the contents. what you mean with Although we comply with the GL ? The whole idea witjh the current GL is that we should not make packages from foreign repos available, with FESCO/Fedora Legal providing exemptions in some cases. lpf is an exception, but it has beed reviewed and discussed within the FPC. if I have time in future I'll will try do frp idea, as a sub project of lpf :) Contributions always welcome! That said, it will probably need a new discussion with FPC since this is an entirely new way of handling this sensitive area. Again: this request is more like a test of the legal/policy ramifications for packaged yum configurations in rpmfusion. Anyone, out there?
RPM Fusion (Fedora - free) Package Build Report 2014-01-29
Packages built and released for RPM Fusion (Fedora - free) testing/20: 7 buildsys-build-rpmfusion-20-6 libvdpau-va-gl-0.3.2-1.fc20 ndiswrapper-kmod-1.59-5.fc20.5 openafs-kmod-1.6.6-0.pre1.fc20.9 staging-kmod-3.12.6-1.fc20.5 VirtualBox-kmod-4.3.6-2.fc20.3 xtables-addons-kmod-2.3-4.fc20.6 Packages built and released for RPM Fusion (Fedora - free) testing/19: 7 buildsys-build-rpmfusion-19-41 libvdpau-va-gl-0.3.2-1.fc19 ndiswrapper-kmod-1.58-6.fc19.17 openafs-kmod-1.6.6-0.pre1.fc19.7 staging-kmod-3.12.6-1.fc19.5 VirtualBox-kmod-4.3.6-2.fc19.3 xtables-addons-kmod-2.3-3.fc19.27 Packages built and released for RPM Fusion (Fedora - free) development: 1 libvdpau-va-gl-0.3.2-1.fc21 Changes in RPM Fusion (Fedora - free) testing/20: buildsys-build-rpmfusion-20-6 - * Tue Jan 28 2014 Nicolas Chauvet kwiz...@gmail.com - 10:20-6 - rebuild for kernel 3.12.9-300.fc20 libvdpau-va-gl-0.3.2-1.fc20 --- * Sun Jan 26 2014 Nicolas Chauvet kwiz...@gmail.com - 0.3.2-1 - Update to 0.3.2 ndiswrapper-kmod-1.59-5.fc20.5 -- * Tue Jan 28 2014 Nicolas Chauvet kwiz...@gmail.com - 1.59-5.5 - Rebuilt for kernel openafs-kmod-1.6.6-0.pre1.fc20.9 * Tue Jan 28 2014 Nicolas Chauvet kwiz...@gmail.com - 1.6.6-0.pre1.9 - Rebuilt for kernel staging-kmod-3.12.6-1.fc20.5 * Tue Jan 28 2014 Nicolas Chauvet kwiz...@gmail.com - 3.12.6-1.5 - Rebuilt for kernel VirtualBox-kmod-4.3.6-2.fc20.3 -- * Tue Jan 28 2014 Nicolas Chauvet kwiz...@gmail.com - 4.3.6-2.3 - Rebuilt for kernel xtables-addons-kmod-2.3-4.fc20.6 * Tue Jan 28 2014 Nicolas Chauvet kwiz...@gmail.com - 2.3-4.6 - Rebuilt for kernel Changes in RPM Fusion (Fedora - free) testing/19: buildsys-build-rpmfusion-19-41 -- * Tue Jan 28 2014 Nicolas Chauvet kwiz...@gmail.com - 10:19-41 - rebuild for kernel 3.12.9-200.fc19 libvdpau-va-gl-0.3.2-1.fc19 --- * Sun Jan 26 2014 Nicolas Chauvet kwiz...@gmail.com - 0.3.2-1 - Update to 0.3.2 ndiswrapper-kmod-1.58-6.fc19.17 --- * Tue Jan 28 2014 Nicolas Chauvet kwiz...@gmail.com - 1.58-6.17 - Rebuilt for kernel openafs-kmod-1.6.6-0.pre1.fc19.7 * Tue Jan 28 2014 Nicolas Chauvet kwiz...@gmail.com - 1.6.6-0.pre1.7 - Rebuilt for kernel staging-kmod-3.12.6-1.fc19.5 * Tue Jan 28 2014 Nicolas Chauvet kwiz...@gmail.com - 3.12.6-1.5 - Rebuilt for kernel VirtualBox-kmod-4.3.6-2.fc19.3 -- * Tue Jan 28 2014 Nicolas Chauvet kwiz...@gmail.com - 4.3.6-2.3 - Rebuilt for kernel xtables-addons-kmod-2.3-3.fc19.27 - * Tue Jan 28 2014 Nicolas Chauvet kwiz...@gmail.com - 2.3-3.27 - Rebuilt for kernel Changes in RPM Fusion (Fedora - free) development: libvdpau-va-gl-0.3.2-1.fc21 --- * Sun Jan 26 2014 Nicolas Chauvet kwiz...@gmail.com - 0.3.2-1 - Update to 0.3.2
Re: Packaging 3-rd party repositories in rpmfusion
On Wed, Jan 29, 2014 at 12:12 PM, Alec Leamas leamas.a...@gmail.com wrote: Formally, this is about review request 3152 for dropbox-repo [1]. From a more practical POV, it's about users being able to install software like dropbox more or less out of the box, an area where I think we really need to improve (as can be seen in all those Fedora XX post installation guide out there). My basic understanding is that current Fedora guidelines needs a interpretation in the rpmfusion context. Those brand new GL for 3-rd party repos are in [2] (discussions in [3]). For now, I think they can be abridged to: - Non-free repos can not be part of Fedora yum configuration. - In some cases free repos can be part of the configuration after FESCO/Fedora legal approval. Now, IMHO this doesn't really make much sense for rpmfusion for three reasons: - rpmfusion does not ban non-free software, it's one of the very reasons it exists. RPM Fusion doesn't ban non-free software, but it does not allow non redistributable software. It is not a place to ship everything regardless of its license. - FESCO/Fedora legal cannot approve anything in rpmfusion. At the start of RPM Fusion we had a sort of steering committee which handled such decisions (IIRC Hans, Matthias and Thorsten). Each of them represented one of the repositories merged in RPM Fusion (Dribble, Freshrpms, and Livna). It could be good to have such a committee back. - We already have a list of endorsed 3-rd party repos [4]. That list is not endorsed in any way by RPM Fusion. It is just a list of third party repositories made for user convenience, some of which are known to work well (i.e. without conflicts) with RPM Fusion. To handle this, my simple proposal is that we handles packaged yum repositories like this: - It's ok to package yum repositories listed in [4]. - If anyone wants to change the list in [4] this should be announced here on rpmfusion-devel, and not done until we agree on it (similar to how we handle bundling exceptions). Thoughts. out there? As RPM Fusion follows Fedora guidelines and at present Fedora forbids to ship third party repositories, we should do the same. Regards, Andrea.
Re: Packaging 3-rd party repositories in rpmfusion
On 1/29/14, Andrea Musuruane musur...@gmail.com wrote: On Wed, Jan 29, 2014 at 12:12 PM, Alec Leamas leamas.a...@gmail.com wrote: At the start of RPM Fusion we had a sort of steering committee which handled such decisions (IIRC Hans, Matthias and Thorsten). Each of them represented one of the repositories merged in RPM Fusion (Dribble, Freshrpms, and Livna). It could be good to have such a committee back. Yes, I wondered about this... we really need a way to adapt. - We already have a list of endorsed 3-rd party repos [4]. That list is not endorsed in any way by RPM Fusion. It is just a list of third party repositories made for user convenience, some of which are known to work well (i.e. without conflicts) with RPM Fusion. OK. Then my proposal includes changing the official status of this list (which certainly will require an update). And of course, from a user perspective: why shouldn't it be easy to use those repos which we know actually works with rpmfusion? From a legal POV there shouldn't be much difference between recommending a manual install and some tooling making it as long as user makes the final decisions. As RPM Fusion follows Fedora guidelines and at present Fedora forbids to ship third party repositories, we should do the same. Actually, they don't just forbid shipping repos - there is mechanisms and policys for exemptions, and they are obviously intended to be used (GL are *really* new). It's just that those policys and decision making processes are not applicable for rpmfusion. That's why we need to interpret this for our own needs in a meaningful way. That said, I agree that unless we can change the rules of the game for rpmfusion (probably requiring some kind of steering body) we probably cannot ship a yum 3-rd party repository as things are right now. Which seems to boil down to that rpmfusion lacks decision-making capabilities. --alec
Re: Bundling exception for CMPlayer
Update from the CMPlayer developer [1]: I can't be sure till I see the actual result. However, because they have very nice attitude to accept suggestions, if somethings are lacked in the result, I think I can make acceptable patch that point once it is released. So it doesn't seem like anything's changing soon, but we may see a resolution of this issue with the eventual release of the MPV shared library. [1] https://github.com/xylosper/cmplayer/issues/34#issuecomment-33585255
Re: [Bug 3152] Review request: dropbox-repo - 3rd-party repo package for Dropbox client
Guide Lines... --a On 1/29/14, Sérgio Basto ser...@serjux.com wrote: On Qua, 2014-01-29 at 11:22 +0100, Alec Leamas wrote: On 1/29/14, RPM Fusion Bugzilla nore...@rpmfusion.org wrote: https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=3152 --- Comment #38 from Sérgio Basto ser...@serjux.com 2014-01-29 08:56:22 CET --- (In reply to comment #30) Less legal/policy concerns but will give more work to develop. Not necessarily. See spot's comment in comment #31 link. Basically, if we just points to a repo provided by an ISV like Dropbox it's actually the ISV which is distributing. If we repackage it we becomes more responsible for the contents. what you mean with Although we comply with the GL ? The whole idea witjh the current GL is that we should not make packages from foreign repos available, with FESCO/Fedora Legal providing exemptions in some cases. lpf is an exception, but it has beed reviewed and discussed within the FPC. if I have time in future I'll will try do frp idea, as a sub project of lpf :) Contributions always welcome! That said, it will probably need a new discussion with FPC since this is an entirely new way of handling this sensitive area. Again: this request is more like a test of the legal/policy ramifications for packaged yum configurations in rpmfusion. Anyone, out there? Sorry, above all, what means GL ? Thanks, -- Sérgio M. B.
[Bug 3043] Review request: lfp-flash-plugin - Adobe Flash Player package bootstrap
https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=3043 --- Comment #23 from Sérgio Basto ser...@serjux.com 2014-01-29 19:42:53 CET --- flash-plugin: install completed, no errors flash-plugin is now updated thanks -- 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 #24 from Sérgio Basto ser...@serjux.com 2014-01-29 19:45:44 CET --- (In reply to comment #23) flash-plugin: install completed, no errors flash-plugin is now updated thanks sorry. reported in wrong bug report, but cvs request can be made in any bug report and with bug closed. -- 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 3155] Review request: pithos - Native Pandora Radio Client for Linux
https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=3155 --- Comment #2 from Matias Kreder mkre...@gmail.com 2014-01-29 20:17:46 CET --- Thank you. I have contacted the requester of one of the previous BZs to see if he is still interested in packaging it. If so, I will help him with the review. -- 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 3155] Review request: pithos - Native Pandora Radio Client for Linux
https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=3155 --- Comment #3 from Matias Kreder mkre...@gmail.com 2014-01-29 20:22:27 CET --- The requester of #2577 replied saying he is no longer interested in packaging it. #1539 is almost dead. I think we should go ahead using this BZ. -- 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.
RHEL 7 beta
Would it be possible to start building against RHEL 7 beta? -- Orion Poplawski Technical Manager 303-415-9701 x222 NWRA, Boulder/CoRA Office FAX: 303-415-9702 3380 Mitchell Lane or...@nwra.com Boulder, CO 80301 http://www.nwra.com
EL 7 repo
Hello, I just wanted to know since work on epel has started a while ago for the EL7 repo do you think you will make a repo for the EL 7 beta in the meantime or once epel is done ? Thank you Claudio
[Bug 2444] Review request: mp3fs - A dynamic MP encoding fuse file-system
https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2444 --- Comment #11 from Stuart Gathman stu...@gathman.org 2014-01-29 23:14:28 CET --- I submitted this package quite some time ago. Did I miss something? Was there a next step I was supposed to take? I don't believe I have priv to build on the official build system. If it is just a matter of waiting for people to get a round TUIT, I understand. I just want to make sure I'm not missing something in the procedure. I presume it would help if I submitted some packages to Fedora first? -- 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 2444] Review request: mp3fs - A dynamic MP encoding fuse file-system
https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2444 Richard hobbes1...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added CC||hobbes1...@gmail.com --- Comment #12 from Richard hobbes1...@gmail.com 2014-01-30 04:39:54 CET --- It may just be lack of time. I know I don't have very much right now. Also, we don't have a very formal sponsorship process on RPM Fusion (not that it's that formal on Fedora). The best way to get your package reviewed is to do a review swap, but in your case you can't do that yet... It's not required to submit a Review Request to Fedora first and see if it gets blocked if you can show a hard dependency on a package that is only provided by RPM Fusion, ffmpeg being a common one. -- 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.
