https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2165399
--- Comment #47 from Fedora Update System ---
FEDORA-2023-abe9a1c6f5 has been pushed to the Fedora 36 stable repository.
If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are o
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2165399
--- Comment #46 from Fedora Update System ---
FEDORA-2023-0cdde78201 has been pushed to the Fedora 37 stable repository.
If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are a
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2165399
Fedora Update System changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |ERRATA
Status|ON_QA
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2165399
--- Comment #44 from Fedora Update System ---
FEDORA-2023-abe9a1c6f5 has been pushed to the Fedora 36 testing repository.
Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command:
`sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing --re
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2165399
--- Comment #43 from Fedora Update System ---
FEDORA-2023-0cdde78201 has been pushed to the Fedora 37 testing repository.
Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command:
`sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing --re
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2165399
Fedora Update System changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA
--- Comment #42 from Fed
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2165399
Fedora Update System changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|POST|MODIFIED
--- Comment #39 from
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2165399
Fedora Update System changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|POST|MODIFIED
--- Comment #39 from
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2165399
--- Comment #41 from Fedora Update System ---
FEDORA-2023-0cdde78201 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 37.
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2023-0cdde78201
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are always notifie
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2165399
--- Comment #38 from Fedora Admin user for bugzilla script actions
---
The Pagure repository was created at
https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/obs-studio
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are a
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2165399
Carl George š¤ changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
Status|ASSIG
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2165399
--- Comment #36 from Fedora Review Service
---
Copr build:
https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/5800381
(succeeded)
Review template:
https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2165399-obs-studio/
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2165399
--- Comment #35 from Fedora Review Service
---
Created attachment 1957940
--> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=1957940&action=edit
The .spec file difference from Copr build 5749313 to 5800381
--
You are receiving this mail b
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2165399
--- Comment #34 from Neal Gompa ---
qsv11's license stanza has been extracted and collected as a license file now.
Updated librtmp's license clause.
Spec URL: https://ngompa.fedorapeople.org/for-review/obs-studio.spec
SRPM URL:
https://ngompa
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2165399
--- Comment #33 from Carl George š¤ ---
Several files in the outputs plugin have headers indicating they are Public
Domain. You'll need to add LicenseRef-Fedora-Public-Domain to your license
field.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
Yo
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2165399
--- Comment #32 from Carl George š¤ ---
Several files in the qsv11 plugin have the following header:
This file is provided under a dual BSD/GPLv2 license. When using or
redistributing this file, you may do so under either license.
If I'm rea
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2165399
--- Comment #31 from Neal Gompa ---
License stanzas have been extracted and collected as license files now.
Spec URL: https://ngompa.fedorapeople.org/for-review/obs-studio.spec
SRPM URL:
https://ngompa.fedorapeople.org/for-review/obs-studio-2
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2165399
--- Comment #30 from Neal Gompa ---
Khronos EGL headers have been stripped:
Spec URL: https://ngompa.fedorapeople.org/for-review/obs-studio.spec
SRPM URL:
https://ngompa.fedorapeople.org/for-review/obs-studio-29.1.0~beta4-0.fc39.2.src.rpm
-
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2165399
--- Comment #29 from Carl George š¤ ---
> - deps/glad/include/KHR/khrplatform.h is identified by licensecheck as being
> under the Khronos license. I don't see this on the Fedora allowed license
> list [2]. It does look quite similar to the
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2165399
--- Comment #28 from Carl George š¤ ---
What I've done in cases like that is:
- extract the text of the license from the source file and include it in a text
file
- list that text file as an additional Source in the spec file
- include a comme
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2165399
--- Comment #27 from Neal Gompa ---
Update to 29.1.0~beta4:
Spec URL: https://ngompa.fedorapeople.org/for-review/obs-studio.spec
SRPM URL:
https://ngompa.fedorapeople.org/for-review/obs-studio-29.1.0~beta4-0.fc39.1.src.rpm
I've made further
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2165399
--- Comment #26 from Carl George š¤ ---
The licenses and bundled libraries are still not fully addressed.
- There is no license breakdown comment to indicate which files are under which
license.
- The bundled blake2 library is (CC0-1.0 or Open
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2165399
--- Comment #24 from Jakub KadlÄĆk ---
Created attachment 1956026
--> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=1956026&action=edit
The .spec file difference from Copr build 573 to 5749313
--
You are receiving this mail because:
Y
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2165399
--- Comment #25 from Jakub KadlÄĆk ---
Copr build:
https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/5749313
(succeeded)
Review template:
https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2165399-obs-studio/fedora-ra
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2165399
--- Comment #23 from Neal Gompa ---
Update to 29.1.0~beta3:
Spec URL: https://ngompa.fedorapeople.org/for-review/obs-studio.spec
SRPM URL:
https://ngompa.fedorapeople.org/for-review/obs-studio-29.1.0~beta3-0.fc39.1.src.rpm
--
You are recei
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2165399
--- Comment #22 from Jakub KadlÄĆk ---
Copr build:
https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/573
(succeeded)
Review template:
https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2165399-obs-studio/fedora-ra
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2165399
--- Comment #21 from Jakub KadlÄĆk ---
Created attachment 1955811
--> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=1955811&action=edit
The .spec file difference from Copr build 5737820 to 573
--
You are receiving this mail because:
Y
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2165399
--- Comment #20 from Neal Gompa ---
Update to 29.1.0~beta2:
Spec URL: https://ngompa.fedorapeople.org/for-review/obs-studio.spec
SRPM URL:
https://ngompa.fedorapeople.org/for-review/obs-studio-29.1.0~beta2-0.fc39.1.src.rpm
--
You are recei
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2165399
--- Comment #18 from Jakub KadlÄĆk ---
Created attachment 1955390
--> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=1955390&action=edit
The .spec file difference from Copr build 5726827 to 5737820
--
You are receiving this mail because:
Y
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2165399
--- Comment #19 from Jakub KadlÄĆk ---
Copr build:
https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/5737820
(succeeded)
Review template:
https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2165399-obs-studio/fedora-ra
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2165399
--- Comment #17 from Neal Gompa ---
Most of the feedback in comment 16 has been addressed with the below update.
However, I want to point out a note of clarification: the deps directory does
not necessarily imply it's third-party code. Some of
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2165399
--- Comment #16 from Carl George š¤ ---
What's the purpose for setting __brp_check_rpaths to nil? Whatever it is
please include it as a comment above the macro definition.
What's the purpose of defining __python? The comment says it is to by
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2165399
--- Comment #15 from Jakub KadlÄĆk ---
Copr build:
https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/5726827
(succeeded)
Review template:
https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2165399-obs-studio/fedora-ra
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2165399
--- Comment #14 from Jakub KadlÄĆk ---
Created attachment 1954465
--> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=1954465&action=edit
The .spec file difference from Copr build 5712616 to 5726827
--
You are receiving this mail because:
Y
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2165399
--- Comment #13 from Neal Gompa ---
New build with some of the feedback addressed (still in progress)
Spec URL: https://ngompa.fedorapeople.org/for-review/obs-studio.spec
SRPM URL:
https://ngompa.fedorapeople.org/for-review/obs-studio-29.1.0~
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2165399
--- Comment #12 from Davide Cavalca ---
Other issues from a quick review:
[ ]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
Note: Directories without known owners:
/usr/share/icons/hicolor/128x128, /usr/share/icons/hicolor/512x
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2165399
Davide Cavalca changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||dav...@cavalca.name
--- Comment #10
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2165399
--- Comment #11 from Davide Cavalca ---
Created attachment 1953970
--> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=1953970&action=edit
licensecheck
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are alwa
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2165399
--- Comment #9 from Jakub KadlÄĆk ---
Copr build:
https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/5712616
(succeeded)
Review template:
https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2165399-obs-studio/fedora-raw
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2165399
--- Comment #8 from Jakub KadlÄĆk ---
Created attachment 1953968
--> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=1953968&action=edit
The .spec file difference from Copr build 5541387 to 5712616
--
You are receiving this mail because:
Yo
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2165399
Neal Gompa changed:
What|Removed |Added
Whiteboard|NotReady|
--- Comment #7 from Neal Gompa ---
Now
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2165399
Carl George š¤ changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||c...@redhat.com
Status|NEW
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2165399
Bug 2165399 depends on bug 2152402, which changed state.
Bug 2152402 Summary: Review Request: librist - Library for Reliable Internet
Stream Transport (RIST) protocol
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2152402
What|Remov
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2165399
Jakub KadlÄĆk changed:
What|Removed |Added
URL||https://obsproject.com/
--- Comment #
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2165399
--- Comment #5 from Neal Gompa ---
Another update:
Spec URL: https://ngompa.fedorapeople.org/for-review/obs-studio.spec
SRPM URL:
https://ngompa.fedorapeople.org/for-review/obs-studio-29.0.2-0.fc39.1.src.rpm
--
You are receiving this mail
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2165399
Neal Gompa changed:
What|Removed |Added
Whiteboard||NotReady
--
You are receiving this mai
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2165399
--- Comment #4 from Michael J Gruber ---
Perfect, thanks Neal!
A formal review should probably wait for the dependencies then.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
You a
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2165399
--- Comment #3 from Neal Gompa ---
There is work ongoing for migrating this package from RPM Fusion to Fedora. In
particular, I'm also doing upstream work to adapt things for Fedora's
constraints.
The obs-x264 plugin (which is where the x264
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2165399
Michael J Gruber changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||m...@fedoraproject.org
--- Comment
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2165399
--- Comment #1 from Jakub KadlÄĆk ---
Copr build:
https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/5356241
(failed)
Build log:
https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2165399-obs-studio/srpm-builds/0535624
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2165399
Neal Gompa changed:
What|Removed |Added
Depends On||2152402
Doc Type|---
51 matches
Mail list logo