http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1030
--- Comment #46 from Alex Lancaster <[email protected]> 2010-01-21 10:28:09 --- (In reply to comment #45) > (In reply to comment #42) > > > > I added next 3 patches to trac: http://xbmc.org/trac/ticket/8590 > Thanks. > > > Patch8: xbmc-9.11-spyce.diff > This fixes python-2.6 syntax errors (the syntax of the sources xbmc has merged > into their source-tree is invalid) OK, is it fixed in trunk? > > Patch9: xbmc-9.11-RandomNumberGenerators.hpp.diff > This is a fix to a minor but quite obious bug - Without this patch, the code > is > more or less useless. There are plans to move to libprojectM 2.0.1 in trunk, I think, but I don't think they have as yet: http://xbmc.org/trac/ticket/8277 and ultimately we should be compiling against the external version: http://xbmc.org/trac/ticket/8408 so is it still worth submitting this patch upstream?? > > Ralf this fixes GCC warning: partial backport to 9.11, will this be fixed in > > next release? > Well, much of this patch is from xbxc's svn-trunk. > It is not fixed on 9.11_branch. > > Do we need to report upstream? > I think so. This bug (a memory-leak) is still in 9.11_branch. > > Patch11: xbmc-9.11-changeset-26191.diff OK, but the next 10.x version will presumably be from trunk, so I don't know if there is a point in resubmitting it as a trac ticket upstream, they'd probably just close as being fixed in trunk. I don't think xbmc upstream make point releases based on the branches AFAIK, except for the "Live" version, and in this case, we are effectively "Live". > > This fixes problems with web server segfaulting on x86_64, I submitted > > http://xbmc.org/trac/ticket/8591 > > Patch12: xbmc-9.11-GoAhead.diff This was submitted and they immediately closed it, apparently goahead is about to be replaced: http://xbmc.org/trac/ticket/8591#comment:1 > Thanks - FWIW: I am having some problems in keeping keeping the > pace/synch-ing > my packages with you, because I have several further patches applied locally > and am testing them. I'll leave updating the spec for a while to give you a chance to test them. Perhaps you could just make the modifications relative to my last (-8) spec file, update the changelog and then attach it (and any new patches) right to this bug. Then I can roll a new srpm. Also: are you willing to actually review this? Or is there somebody who is, since nobody has yet volunteered. -- Configure bugmail: http://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.
