On Sat, Nov 5, 2011 at 3:48 PM, Yasha Karant <ykar...@csusb.edu> wrote:
> Thank you. I am (well) aware of the power of VLC, particularly compared > with a number of other offerings/applications, both open systems and > proprietary for fee. Although I would very much like to comment upon the > issues you have raised concerning the reading and use of legally purchased > and owned for-personal-use DVDs across region codes, as this list repeatedly > has stated that it is strictly technology for technicians/technologists and > devoid of any intellectual issues or discussions -- including societal > issues as required under the ACM code of ethics, I shall not take the bait. Well, it wasn't bait, I was pointing out the need for caution, not trying to make a moral judgment, and explaining why you won't find vlc's components in our favorite upstream vendor's open source or free software licensed source repositories. > I would very much appreciate it if you would provide the tools, syntax, > etc., for the needed mock build environment, as I presume that the resulting > containment is "safer" than allowing ATrpms to have free reign (and free > update requests) for a production end-user stable EL workstation. The mock package itself is available from EPEL. By default, it points to (that other rebuild from our favorite upstream vendor) repositories, which need re-arrangement to point to somewhat different names of Scientific Linux channels. Let me spend a bit of time setting it up for atrpms access. I'll post those in a separate thread. I had some issues installing it under SL 5.7, due to package version conflicts with EPEL. Under SL 6.1 on x86_64, vlc pulls in no fewer than 43 packages from atrpms. I don't think you want to take on building that youself without atrpms. Maintaing your own dependency tree will get pretty old, pretty fast.