On 26 November 2013 00:08, Sérgio Basto 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 in
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,
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
On Qui, 2013-11-21 at 10:43 +0100, Simone Caronni wrote:
>
>
>
> On 21 November 2013 10:22, Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski
> 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
>
https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=3043
--- Comment #4 from Alec Leamas 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.
https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=3043
--- Comment #3 from Sérgio Basto 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=em
https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=3043
--- Comment #2 from Nicolas Chauvet 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 i6
https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=3043
Alec Leamas changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Blocks|2
https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=3048
--- Comment #6 from Alec Leamas 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
https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=3043
--- Comment #1 from Simone Caronni 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 se
10 matches
Mail list logo
