Re: [intel-media-driver] Update to 22.5.4

Hi, On Mon, Oct 24, 2022 at 2:48 PM Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski < domi...@greysector.net> wrote: > Intel's releases for oneVPL-intel-gpu list the corresponding component > versions: > https://github.com/oneapi-src/oneVPL-intel-gpu/releases > > oneVPL GPU Runtime: >

Re: [intel-media-driver] Update to 22.5.4

Hi Dominik, sorry I was on holiday. On Mon, Oct 17, 2022 at 2:13 PM Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski < domi...@greysector.net> wrote: > Simone, would it make sense keep the oneVPL-intel-gpu package in sync > with intel-media-driver (RPM Fusion), intel-mediasdk and intel-gmmlib > (Fedora) in all

Re: lpf-spotify-client should be arched ?

On Wed, Jun 14, 2017 at 9:04 AM, Nicolas Chauvet wrote: > Btw, can we orphan lpf-skype can be orphaned ? > I would say so. Also, I would remove all lpf packages, lpf itself upstream has not seen any new updates since 2015. I think it was set to > be deprecated by July (skype

Re: Unable to approve ACLS in pkgdb

On Tue, Apr 11, 2017 at 4:11 PM, Nicolas Chauvet wrote: > Ok, I've reworked a little the pkgdb configuration. > It seems like there is issues to connect to the fas and bugilla vm > using external urls. > So I'm using the internal addresses. > Worked like a charm, super fast.

Re: Unable to approve ACLS in pkgdb

Hi all, On Mon, Mar 27, 2017 at 11:59 AM, Xavier Bachelot wrote: > On 27/03/2017 07:04, Jonathan Dieter wrote: > >> Sorry if this is known to be not working, but I'm unable to approve >> ACLs in https://admin.rpmfusion.org/pkgdb. > > This is most probably the same issue,

Re: [Announce] RPM Fusion for EL is restored - EL7 support started

Hello, On Thu, Jan 26, 2017 at 10:25 AM, Nicolas Chauvet wrote: > For the record EL6 repo is provided as i686 and x86_64 whereas EL7 is > only provided as x86_64 at this time. This lead to an issue with > multilib packages in our infra (same as EPEL). So here is the possible

Re: Migrated Wiki + RPM Fusion installation Process

On Fri, Jan 20, 2017 at 3:36 PM, Nicolas Chauvet wrote: > It's weird that you lost you access, can you confirm your account ? > I will use the moin reset password procedure. > Username on FAS and Bugzilla is "slaanesh". Thanks, --Simone -- You cannot discover new oceans

Re: Migrated Wiki + RPM Fusion installation Process

Hello, On Sun, Nov 27, 2016 at 7:28 PM, Nicolas Chauvet wrote: > There are area of improvements, as I've tried to make moinmoin to work > with OpenID so we can re-use our FAS (or even allow for the fedora > FAS). It would be a very good to have. > Right now the contribution

Re: Git / Build error on Steam package

Ok, thanks. ---Simone On Sun, Aug 14, 2016 at 2:29 AM, Sérgio Basto <ser...@serjux.com> wrote: > On Sáb, 2016-08-13 at 17:30 +0200, Simone Caronni wrote: > > Ok, I didn't know I had to; the previous package was at the same > > version and already had the correct sources fi

Re: Git / Build error on Steam package

On Sat, Aug 13, 2016 at 5:09 PM, Nicolas Chauvet wrote: > You haven't run rfpkg new-sources to upload steam_1.0.0.52.tar.gz Ok, I didn't know I had to; the previous package was at the same version and already had the correct sources file. I've uploaded the sources again (it

Git / Build error on Steam package

Hello, I pushed some commits to the Steam packages on most branches (master, f25, f24, f23 and el7) and tried to build it on the master branch. Plan is to build on master and Fedora branches. On the cgit web interface [1] I get an Internal Server Error and when building I get a repository

Re: ActionNotAllowed: policy violation (build_from_srpm)

On Fri, Jul 8, 2016 at 10:13 AM, Nicolas Chauvet wrote: > You are using rfpkg-1.23.3 whereas rfpkg build works since rfpkg-1.23.4. Ah ok, thanks, missed that. Regards, --Simone -- You cannot discover new oceans unless you have the courage to lose sight of the shore (R.

Re: propose drop some packages and update of state of packages to be updated and FTBFS

Why do you want to remove dhewm3? I use it, I just updated it and there is also a bug from a user requesting the update. --Simone On Mar 1, 2016 8:01 AM, "Sérgio Basto" wrote: > Hi, > On this email is propose retire several packages, please see the > following list. I will

Re: some packages to be updated 3

On Wed, Feb 24, 2016 at 5:56 PM, Sérgio Basto wrote: > Also: > dhewm3 > https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=3893 Working on it now. Regards, --Simone -- You cannot discover new oceans unless you have the courage to lose sight of the shore (R. W. Emerson).

Re: Problems building for F19

Fedora 19 has been retired in January: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/End_of_life Regards, --Simone On 15 May 2015 at 10:56, Andrea Musuruane musur...@gmail.com wrote: Hi! I have problems building for F19:

Re: RPM Fusion (Fedora - nonfree) Package Build Report 2015-03-31

On 31 March 2015 at 21:04, Nicolas Chauvet kwiz...@gmail.com wrote: 2015-03-31 15:43 GMT+02:00 rpmfusion-pkgs-rep...@rpmfusion.org: (!) lpf-flash-plugin-11.2.202.451-1.fc21 : INVALID rebuild, not published! FYI, the build are there, it's because they were resubmitted twice since as the

Re: OpenSSL.SSL.Error with make build

Try this command, it should work: OPENSSL_ENABLE_MD5_VERIFY=1 make build Ref: https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=3200 On 16 December 2014 at 18:22, Miro Hrončok mhron...@redhat.com wrote: Hi, running Fedora 21 and getting this when using make build:

Re: akmods installs kernel-debug-devel

I On 17 October 2014 19:14, Richard Shaw hobbes1...@gmail.com wrote: That could be because my installation predates the bug and the kernel-devel package still satisfies the requirement... $ repoquery --whatprovides kernel-devel-uname-r kernel-devel-0:3.11.10-301.fc20.x86_64

Re: FreeRDP bump in rawhide

On 17 June 2014 14:10, Simone Caronni negativ...@gmail.com wrote: I'm about to bump FreeRDP in Rawhide to the newly released version 1.2.0 beta 1. This allows us to build Remmina that is currently FTBFS. Of all the packages that are using FreeRDP, only Weston is the one for which I don't

FreeRDP bump in rawhide

Hello, I'm about to bump FreeRDP in Rawhide to the newly released version 1.2.0 beta 1. This allows us to build Remmina that is currently FTBFS. Of all the packages that are using FreeRDP, only Weston is the one for which I don't have any commit access, so it needs to be rebuilt. I've tested a

Re: RHEL 7 beta

Hello, On 30 January 2014 09:07, Nicolas Chauvet kwiz...@gmail.com wrote: I would prefer to start using koji with el7 than plague, so not a priority given the amount of pending infrastrucuture tasks. Also I'm still waiting for people interested in EL to show a working version of

Re: A maintainer kmodtool/akmods for EL6 ?

On 8 December 2013 10:49, Nicolas Chauvet kwiz...@gmail.com wrote: This question was raised already, but I still want a volunteer to adapt kmodtool/akmod for el6. I expect to see patches in order to allow the package there: https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2681#c10 I'm making

Bundling exception for dhewm3

Following review at: https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=3035 I'm asking for a bundling exception for MiniZip in the dhewm3 package. ID Software added a function to MiniZip that is required for the engine to open game data archive files:

Re: Contributing to the Nvidia driver (RHEL/CentOS too)

Hello, On 11 November 2013 17:24, Nicolas Chauvet kwiz...@gmail.com wrote: The current fedora process (hence RPMFusion) expect that you submit patches for review. I'm about to submit patches for the Nvidia driver (current for now). Before submitting I would like to know if there is any

Re: Contributing to the Nvidia driver (RHEL/CentOS too)

On 6 December 2013 17:28, Nicolas Chauvet kwiz...@gmail.com wrote: Try to work the patches on a per feature basis ( look at the existing bug reports if available) This is what I'm planning to do, but my question was if there is any interest on separate nvidia-settings, nvidia-xconfig and

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

Re: Non-redistributable packages: Skype, spotify, ...

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

Re: Non-redistributable packages: Skype, spotify, ...

Alec, I'm importing the lfp-skype package in CVS. I've added something more to the spec file that is in the review; the skype.spec.in file now generate separate skype.i686 and skype-data.noarch packages. Before importing, I would like to know if it's possible with the current lpf from

Re: Non-redistributable packages: Skype, spotify, ...

On 21 November 2013 10:54, Alec Leamas leamas.a...@gmail.com wrote: Before importing, I would like to know if it's possible with the current lpf from fedora-updates-testing. Can it install multiple packages from the generated spec.in file? It's not as tested as it should be, but the code is

Re: Non-redistributable packages: Skype, spotify, ...

Seems to work, but the problem is the architecture. Skype is always i686 while my system is x86_64: Getting requirements for /usr/share/lpf/packages/skype/skype.spec -- Already installed : desktop-file-utils-0.21-2.fc19.x86_64 No uninstalled build requires error: Architecture is not included:

Re: Non-redistributable packages: Skype, spotify, ...

On 18 November 2013 22:15, Nicolas Chauvet kwiz...@gmail.com wrote: Is it possible to only handle the adobe-release* repositories instead ? Unless all thoses adobe packages are really broken ? The flash plugin packages are really broken indeed. They ship a package that is for all rpm based

Re: Non-redistributable packages: Skype, spotify, ...

@fedora-flash-plugin Available Packages flash-plugin-kde.i686 1:11.2.202.310-1.fc19 fedora-flash-plugin flash-plugin-kde.x86_641:11.2.202.310-1.fc19 fedora-flash-plugin Regards, --Simone On 19 November 2013 08:54, Simone Caronni negativ...@gmail.com wrote: On 18 November

Re: Koji, Bodhi and other sweets

On 11 November 2013 13:28, Miro Hrončok mhron...@redhat.com wrote: Hi, I've joined RPMFusion recently and current infrastructurre bothers me. What blocks us from using Koji, Bodhi, git? Is it man power, hardware, money, licnese? How can I help with migrating to Koji and Bodhi and keep the

Re: i686 binary packages in the x86_64 repository

Hi Nicholas, On 4 November 2013 08:56, Simone Caronni negativ...@gmail.com wrote: is it normal that the steam package is available only in the i386 testing repository? Will it be copied to x86_64 only when the package reaches stable status? http://download1.rpmfusion.org/nonfree/fedora

Re: i686 binary packages in the x86_64 repository

Saw it is fixed now. Thanks, --Simone

Re: i686 binary packages in the x86_64 repository

Hi Nicolas, On 23 October 2013 20:49, Nicolas Chauvet kwiz...@gmail.com wrote: From the plague infrastructure perspective there is no issue with having the i686 package automatically copied into the x86_64 repository. From the package you will only need to use ExclusiveArch: i686 That way

Contributing to the Nvidia driver (RHEL/CentOS too)

Hello, I would like to step up into mantaining the Nvidia driver for Fedora and introducing it to RHEL/CentOS as well. I have quite some experience with them and have all sort of hardware (Optimus laptops, SLI systems, etc.) and operating systems to test on. I would like to merge some (all?) of

Re: Non-redistributable packages: Skype, spotify, ...

On 1 November 2013 02:42, Kevin Kofler kevin.kof...@chello.at 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 Apparently for the legal team

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

Re: Non-redistributable packages: Skype, spotify, ...

On 30 October 2013 19:12, Alec Leamas leamas.a...@gmail.com wrote: On the wishlist and/or dead reviews we have some re-distributable packages such as skype, spotify and msttcore-fonts. After scratching my head over these I've hacked some silly scripts , called them lpf (Local package Factory)

Re: Quick question regarding updates pushing

On 29 October 2013 19:23, Simone Caronni negativ...@gmail.com wrote: Hello, by having a look at the Succesful Builds section of Plague [1], I see that the packages are in needsign since the 13th of october (16 days ago). Does it mean they still need to count 7 days since the time

Re: Non-redistributable packages: Skype, spotify, ...

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

Quick question regarding updates pushing

Hello, by having a look at the Succesful Builds section of Plague [1], I see that the packages are in needsign since the 13th of october (16 days ago). Does it mean they still need to count 7 days since the time they are signed? Or the needsign state has nothing to do with being pushed to the

Re: CDRtools in RPMFusion

Oh well, I think I will keep my repository as-is. Thanks everybody for their feedback. 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/

Errror importing src.rpm

Hello, can someone shed some light on this? I'm trying to import my first src.rpm in RPMFusion, but I'm not able to import the package. This is the error I have: $ ./cvs-import.sh -b devel steam-1.0.0.43-7.fc19.src.rpm Checking out module: 'steam' Unpacking source package:

Re: Errror importing src.rpm

On 28 October 2013 14:07, Richard Shaw hobbes1...@gmail.com wrote: On Mon, Oct 28, 2013 at 6:59 AM, Simone Caronni negativ...@gmail.comwrote: On 28 October 2013 10:56, Simone Caronni negativ...@gmail.com wrote: I would also like to point out that the instructions do not describe

Re: Errror importing src.rpm

Thanks, On 28 October 2013 14:23, Richard Shaw hobbes1...@gmail.com wrote: $ make new-sources FILES=/path/to/source bu the command gets stuck here indefinitely and nothing happens: $ make new-sources FILES=steam_1.0.0.43.tar.gz rpmspec: no arguments given for query rpmspec: no arguments

Re: Errror importing src.rpm

at 16:02 +0100, Simone Caronni wrote: Thanks, On 28 October 2013 14:23, Richard Shaw hobbes1...@gmail.com wrote: $ make new-sources FILES=/path/to/source bu the command gets stuck here indefinitely and nothing happens: $ make new-sources FILES=steam_1.0.0.43.tar.gz

Re: Errror importing src.rpm

On 28 October 2013 21:19, Sérgio Basto ser...@serjux.com wrote: Please wait for VirtualBox finish to build ! before send yours package to build. Can you explain please? Should I wait the moment that there are no other packages being built? What's the purpose of the queue? Isn't any sort of

Re: Errror importing src.rpm

On 28 October 2013 21:28, Simone Caronni negativ...@gmail.com wrote: On 28 October 2013 21:19, Sérgio Basto ser...@serjux.com wrote: Please wait for VirtualBox finish to build ! before send yours package to build. Can you explain please? Should I wait the moment that there are no other

Re: Errror importing src.rpm

On 28 October 2013 21:43, Nicolas Chauvet kwiz...@gmail.com wrote: The builder is limited to 2G, thoses package seem to consume all RAM. Ouch. Thanks for pointing it out. Is there a list of things required by RPMFusion for people willing to contribute? Bandwidth requirement/cost, hardware,

i686 binary packages in the x86_64 repository

Hello, the Steam review has been taken, however the reviewer wonders if the infrastructure can cope with i686 binary packages being pushed to the x86_64 repository. I thought it was possible, but this is my first review in RPMFusion so I don't know details of the infrastructure. When installing

CDRtools in RPMFusion

Hello, I would like to merge my current CDRtools package [1] in RPMFusion. It currently has quite a large user base. It is used by people who needs to burn Dual Layer DVDs or Blue Ray discs. Currently cdrkit (wodim) is not able to burn them; actually it never had since its first exception. I

Re: i686 binary packages in the x86_64 repository

On 23 October 2013 19:58, Alec Leamas leamas.a...@gmail.com wrote: On 2013-10-23 19:22, Simone Caronni wrote: I wonder if the simple answer is just No, you can't . OTOH, isn't it perfectly viable to install a 32-bit package on a x86_64 host using e. g., yum install steam.i386? It can

Re: i686 binary packages in the x86_64 repository

On 23 October 2013 20:49, Nicolas Chauvet kwiz...@gmail.com wrote: From the plague infrastructure perspective there is no issue with having the i686 package automatically copied into the x86_64 repository. From the package you will only need to use ExclusiveArch: i686 Quick question. I have

Re: CDRtools in RPMFusion

On 23 October 2013 22:17, Richard Shaw hobbes1...@gmail.com wrote: On Wed, Oct 23, 2013 at 2:52 PM, Susi Lehtola jussileht...@fedoraproject.org wrote: IANAL, but I believe the same reasons that prevent inclusion of CDRtools into Fedora prevent it from inclusion into RPMFusion. The program

Steam review

Hello, anyone willing to take the Steam review? https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2979 As soon as I will have commit access I will take anything in return. Thanks regards, --Simone -- You cannot discover new oceans unless you have the courage to lose sight of the shore (R. W.

Introducing myself

Hello, just joined RPMFusion. Was planning to do it much earlier but work keeps getting in the way. I'm a Fedora contributor; currently listed as #35 (out of 3259) in the Fedora badges app [1]. My Fedora user page [2] list some additional information about reviews, bugs and the various Fedora