https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=6426
--- Comment #128 from Kamil Páral ---
(In reply to Nicolas Chauvet from comment #125)
> While checking dependencies from the mesa vaapi backend, I don't see any
> strict dependencies to mesa-dri-drivers (or others). So I don't see a need
> to
https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=6426
--- Comment #127 from Kamil Páral ---
The dependencies are still broken, I've filed
https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=6612
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the
https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=6426
romula...@protonmail.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||romula...@protonmail.com
---
https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=6426
--- Comment #125 from Nicolas Chauvet ---
dnf update --enablerepo=updates-testing,rpmfusion-free-updates-testing mesa*
Works for me.
fedora mesa and freeworld counterpart are going to be stable soon, that should
fix the issue.
While
https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=6426
--- Comment #124 from Nicolas Chauvet ---
Can you guy please stop going back and forth ?!?
The breakage will be fixed once both fedora/rpmfusion lands, we are waiting for
the fedora change to be added in...
https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=6426
--- Comment #123 from Luya Tshimbalanga ---
Created attachment 2471
--> https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/attachment.cgi?id=2471=edit
Updated spec based on Kevin's suggestion
(In reply to Kevin Kofler from comment #108)
> I guess the %{?_isa}
https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=6426
--- Comment #122 from Kamil Páral ---
I can confirm that rpmfusion repos are not yet refreshed and 22.3.3-2 isn't
present.
Folks, I believe this changes the game completely:
https://github.com/intel/libva/issues/639#issuecomment-1386890859
https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=6426
--- Comment #121 from core_contingency ---
(In reply to Luya Tshimbalanga from comment #119)
> (In reply to core_contingency from comment #117)
> > Unfortunately, it look like Bug 6554 is still occurring - the x86_64 and
> > i686 packages are
https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=6426
--- Comment #120 from Luya Tshimbalanga ---
(In reply to Kevin Kofler from comment #118)
> Any reason why my suggestion from comment#108 would not work? Have you tried
> it?
Scratch-build for RPM Fusion is currently broken to provide the
https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=6426
--- Comment #119 from Luya Tshimbalanga ---
(In reply to core_contingency from comment #117)
> Unfortunately, it look like Bug 6554 is still occurring - the x86_64 and
> i686 packages are conflicting and cannot be installed at the same time
>
https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=6426
--- Comment #118 from Kevin Kofler ---
Any reason why my suggestion from comment#108 would not work? Have you tried
it?
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.___
https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=6426
core_contingency changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ccontinge...@gmail.com
--- Comment
https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=6426
--- Comment #116 from Luya Tshimbalanga ---
Taking a page from comment#111, both conflicts and provides are dropped as
previous approach sadly failed. New release on
Rawhide: https://koji.rpmfusion.org/koji/buildinfo?buildID=24662
F37:
https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=6426
Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||domi...@greysector.net
https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=6426
--- Comment #114 from Luya Tshimbalanga ---
Sorry for the delay.
Based on the suggestion, add %{_isa} solved the issue. I noticed two Provides
for both subpackage so one without %{_isa} is deleted. Only change for the
Conflict is the use of
https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=6426
--- Comment #113 from Nicolas Chauvet ---
@Luya, @Thorsten,
This package is currently broken as soon as you have the i686.
I've suggested a fix in
https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=6426#c104
This is very much a problem that none
https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=6426
--- Comment #112 from Nickolas Gupton ---
These packages seem to have broken with the latest mesa update in Fedora 37:
[root@andromeda ~]# dnf upgrade
Last metadata expiration check: 0:10:46 ago on Sun 15 Jan 2023 11:10:31 AM CST.
Dependencies
https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=6426
leigh scott changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
CC|
https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=6426
--- Comment #111 from Nicolas Chauvet ---
Created attachment 2461
--> https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/attachment.cgi?id=2461=edit
Fix dependencies between fedora/rpmfusion mesa
Scratch build of the rpmfusion part:
--- Begin Message ---
https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=6426
--- Comment #110 from Nerijus Baliūnas ---
What is a problem with
-Conflicts: %{srcname}-va-drivers >=
%{?epoch:%{epoch}:}%{version}-%{release}
+Conflicts: %{srcname}-va-drivers%{?_isa} >=
--- Begin Message ---
https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=6426
--- Comment #109 from Gary Buhrmaster ---
(In reply to Nicolas Chauvet from comment #103)
> I don't think there is any reliable solution
I would imagine that the only (semi) reliable solution is to inform people to
--- Begin Message ---
https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=6426
--- Comment #108 from Kevin Kofler ---
I guess the %{?_isa} also fixes the self-conflict because the virtual Provides
does not have a version with %{?_isa} (you would have to add that explicitly,
but you probably don't
--- Begin Message ---
https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=6426
--- Comment #107 from Nerijus Baliūnas ---
Totally forgot about mock, thanks! The packages installed successfully, with
Removing dependent packages: mesa-va-drivers both i686 and x86_64.
--
You are receiving this mail
--- Begin Message ---
https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=6426
--- Comment #106 from Nicolas Chauvet ---
(In reply to Nerijus Baliūnas from comment #105)
> That's exactly what I suggested. I built x86_64 package with %{?_isa} added
> to Conflicts, but building i686 package on 64 bit
--- Begin Message ---
https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=6426
--- Comment #105 from Nerijus Baliūnas ---
That's exactly what I suggested. I built x86_64 package with %{?_isa} added to
Conflicts, but building i686 package on 64 bit OS fails:
FAILED:
--- Begin Message ---
https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=6426
--- Comment #104 from Nicolas Chauvet ---
Technically this might fix it:
-Conflicts: %{srcname}-va-drivers >=
%{?epoch:%{epoch}:}%{version}-%{release}
+Conflicts: %{srcname}-va-drivers%{?_isa} >=
--- Begin Message ---
https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=6426
--- Comment #103 from Nicolas Chauvet ---
(In reply to Nerijus Baliūnas from comment #101)
> Would it work if instead of conflicts "mesa-va-drivers >= 22.3.3-1.fc37"
No, see
--- Begin Message ---
https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=6426
--- Comment #102 from Nerijus Baliūnas ---
Looking at "provides" it should probably be:
mesa-va-drivers(x86-32) >= 22.3.3-1.fc37
and
mesa-va-drivers(x86-64) >= 22.3.3-1.fc37
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You
--- Begin Message ---
https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=6426
--- Comment #101 from Nerijus Baliūnas ---
Would it work if instead of conflicts "mesa-va-drivers >= 22.3.3-1.fc37" each
package would have:
mesa-va-drivers >= 22.3.3-1.fc37.i686
mesa-va-drivers >= 22.3.3-1.fc37.x86_64
?
--- Begin Message ---
https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=6426
--- Comment #100 from Nerijus Baliūnas ---
Same problem as before, conflict between i686 and x86_64:
Problema: package mesa-va-drivers-freeworld-22.3.3-1.fc37.i686 conflicts with
mesa-va-drivers >= 22.3.3-1.fc37 provided
--- Begin Message ---
https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=6426
--- Comment #99 from Luya Tshimbalanga ---
(In reply to Kamil Páral from comment #98)
> Luya, any chance to fix the issues mentioned above? There's
> mesa-22.3.3-1.fc37 currently in updates-testing, it will need a matching
--- Begin Message ---
https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=6426
--- Comment #98 from Kamil Páral ---
Luya, any chance to fix the issues mentioned above? There's mesa-22.3.3-1.fc37
currently in updates-testing, it will need a matching freeworld update very
soon.
--
You are receiving
--- Begin Message ---
https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=6426
--- Comment #97 from Yann Droneaud ---
(In reply to Nerijus Baliūnas from comment #95)
> rpm -q mesa-va-drivers-freeworld
> mesa-va-drivers-freeworld-22.3.2-1.fc37.x86_64
> mesa-va-drivers-freeworld-22.3.2-1.fc37.i686
>
>
--- Begin Message ---
https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=6426
--- Comment #96 from Kamil Páral ---
Hah, that's funny, we didn't see that coming. We want to conflict with the
Fedora package, but we have a Provides of the same name, and so our package
ends up conflicting with itself
--- Begin Message ---
https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=6426
--- Comment #95 from Nerijus Baliūnas ---
rpm -q mesa-va-drivers-freeworld
mesa-va-drivers-freeworld-22.3.2-1.fc37.x86_64
mesa-va-drivers-freeworld-22.3.2-1.fc37.i686
Trying to update:
Problema: package
https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=6426
--- Comment #94 from Luya Tshimbalanga ---
Thanks for the pointer, Kamil. I pushed the fix in the repository.
(In reply to Thorsten Leemhuis from comment #91)
> (In reply to Luya Tshimbalanga from comment #90)
> > I updated the spec file adding
https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=6426
--- Comment #93 from Kamil Páral ---
Luya, I think you made a typo in [1]:
+Conflicts: %{srcname}-va-drivers >=
%{?epoch:%{epoch}:}%{version}-%{release}
+Conflicts: %{srcname}-vdpau-drivers >
%{?epoch:%{epoch}:}%{version}-%{release}
I haven't got the time to waste on mesa pushes and untags.
We need to change our package replacement policy.
On 02/01/2023 17:09, Gary Buhrmaster wrote:
I suspect in this case the most viable (although
very ugly) solution is for the freeworld packager(s)
to request the rpmfusion admins untag
On Mon, Jan 2, 2023 at 9:55 AM RPM Fusion Bugzilla
wrote:
>
> Comment # 91 on bug 6426 from Thorsten Leemhuis
>
> (In reply to Luya Tshimbalanga from comment #90)
> > I updated the spec file adding conflicts condition
>
> Thx for this. I noticed you increased %release when you did so, which is
https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=6426
--- Comment #92 from Nicolas Chauvet ---
(In reply to Thorsten Leemhuis from comment #91)
...
> Recommends: %{name}-va-drivers%{?_isa} =
> %{?epoch:%{epoch}:}%{version}-%{release}
Can someone task the mesa maintainer to turn this
https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=6426
--- Comment #91 from Thorsten Leemhuis ---
(In reply to Luya Tshimbalanga from comment #90)
> I updated the spec file adding conflicts condition
Thx for this. I noticed you increased %release when you did so, which is thus
now out of sync
https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=6426
--- Comment #90 from Luya Tshimbalanga ---
I updated the spec file adding conflicts condition to prevent update from
Fedora repository overriding the dependency.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the
https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=6426
--- Comment #89 from Luya Tshimbalanga ---
Further testing on the AMD powered desktop showed a conflict between
mesa-va-drivers-freeworld 22.3.1 and mesa-va-drover 22.3.2. Let's try the
suggestion from comment#81 about adding conflict
https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=6426
--- Comment #88 from Luya Tshimbalanga ---
As tested on my laptop:
sudo dnf swap mesa-va-drivers mesa-va-drivers-freeworld
Place your right index finger on the fingerprint reader
Fedora 37 - x86_64 - Updates 21 kB/s | 20
https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=6426
--- Comment #87 from Thorsten Leemhuis ---
(In reply to Nerijus Baliūnas from comment #86)
> 22.3.2-1.fc37 is already in updates-testing.
I know about this and the updated package was build about 36 hours ago already
(IOW: just a few hours
https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=6426
--- Comment #86 from Nerijus Baliūnas ---
(In reply to Thorsten Leemhuis from comment #85)
> (In reply to Neal Gompa from comment #81)
> > Provides + Conflicts would make DNF know one or the other must be installed.
>
> Out of curiosity: does
https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=6426
--- Comment #85 from Thorsten Leemhuis ---
(In reply to Neal Gompa from comment #81)
> Provides + Conflicts would make DNF know one or the other must be installed.
Out of curiosity: does anybody know for sure what will then happen in the
https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=6426
--- Comment #84 from Kevin Kofler ---
Packages with file conflicts are ALWAYS required to have an explicit Conflicts:
tag, otherwise errors like this happen.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the
https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=6426
--- Comment #83 from AsciiWolf ---
By the way, did any one try replacing the package using GUI (GNOME Software or
KDE Discover)? In theory, it should work since this package has AppStream
metadata, but the question is how GNOME Software (KDE
https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=6426
--- Comment #82 from Kamil Páral ---
I see, mesa-dri-drivers recommends "mesa-va-drivers(x86-64) = version", and
mesa-va-drivers-freeworld provides it. So if -freeworld is lagging behind, dnf
tries to satisfy the recommends with the
https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=6426
--- Comment #81 from Neal Gompa ---
Provides + Conflicts would make DNF know one or the other must be installed.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.___
https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=6426
--- Comment #80 from Vitaly Zaitsev ---
This is a typical and well-known Fedora vs. RPM Fusion repo desync issue.
Fedora's version was updated and RPM Fusion's doesn't. That's why I don't like
splitting packages between Fedora and RPM Fusion.
https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=6426
--- Comment #79 from Kamil Páral ---
Perhaps an explicit "Conflicts: mesa-va-drivers" in mesa-va-drivers-freeworld
would do the job? Can somebody test it?
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the
https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=6426
--- Comment #78 from Kamil Páral ---
Folks, I don't think this is working as expected. Weeks ago, I swapped
mesa-va-drivers and mesa-va-drivers-freeworld according to the guide:
https://rpmfusion.org/Howto/Multimedia
But today, a new mesa
https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=6426
--- Comment #77 from Luya Tshimbalanga ---
(In reply to Iñaki Ucar from comment #76)
> Question regarding this package. I upgraded to F37 the other day, no issue.
> Now, I have mesa-va-drivers installed, but if I try to install
>
https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=6426
Iñaki Ucar changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||i.uca...@gmail.com
--- Comment #76 from
https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=6426
--- Comment #75 from leigh scott ---
(In reply to Florian Apolloner from comment #69)
> There seems to be a problem with the spec file, the description is not
> expanded:
>
> Last metadata expiration check: 0:00:50 ago on So 13 Nov 2022
https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=6426
--- Comment #74 from Vitaly Zaitsev ---
We should ask Fedora side to relax NVR requirements.
Until this is done, we will be forced to use the same NVR as the Fedora package
and not even be able to increase the Release.
--
You are receiving
https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=6426
--- Comment #73 from Vitaly Zaitsev ---
Pushed updates: mesa-freeworld-22.2.3-1.fc37 and
mesa-freeworld-22.3.0~rc2-2.fc38.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the
https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=6426
--- Comment #72 from Thorsten Leemhuis ---
(In reply to Luya Tshimbalanga from comment #71)
> Cool! Let know about your usename so I can add you.
it's thl
how do we coordinate? are you on irc (I'm "knurd") these days? I could fire up
my
https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=6426
--- Comment #71 from Luya Tshimbalanga ---
(In reply to Thorsten Leemhuis from comment #70)
> Hmmm, I have an eye on Fedora's mesa package anyway and I actually use this
> package on my main machine. I'm not a active RPM Fusion contributor
https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=6426
--- Comment #70 from Thorsten Leemhuis ---
(In reply to Luya Tshimbalanga from comment #58)
> Co-maintainers are welcome to contribute.
Hmmm, I have an eye on Fedora's mesa package anyway and I actually use this
package on my main machine. I'm
https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=6426
Florian Apolloner changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||flor...@apolloner.eu
--- Comment
https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=6426
--- Comment #68 from Vitaly Zaitsev ---
Fedora 37 already has mesa-22.2.3-1.fc37 in testing.
Rawhide has mesa-22.3.0~rc2-2.fc38.
Someone need to update mesa-freeworld.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the
https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=6426
--- Comment #67 from Luya Tshimbalanga ---
(In reply to Nickolas Gupton from comment #65)
> (In reply to leigh scott from comment #63)
> > (In reply to Luya Tshimbalanga from comment #62)
> > > That is a bummer for Fedora 36. Looking at koji
https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=6426
Geraldo Simiao changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||geraldo.simiao.kutz@gmail.c
https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=6426
--- Comment #65 from Nickolas Gupton ---
(In reply to leigh scott from comment #63)
> (In reply to Luya Tshimbalanga from comment #62)
> > That is a bummer for Fedora 36. Looking at koji build, it seems the latest
> > update is on August 2022.
https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=6426
--- Comment #64 from Luya Tshimbalanga ---
(In reply to leigh scott from comment #63)
> (In reply to Luya Tshimbalanga from comment #62)
> > That is a bummer for Fedora 36. Looking at koji build, it seems the latest
> > update is on August
https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=6426
--- Comment #63 from leigh scott ---
(In reply to Luya Tshimbalanga from comment #62)
> That is a bummer for Fedora 36. Looking at koji build, it seems the latest
> update is on August 2022.
Why?, f36 don't need mesa-freeworld yet as they
https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=6426
--- Comment #62 from Luya Tshimbalanga ---
That is a bummer for Fedora 36. Looking at koji build, it seems the latest
update is on August 2022.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the
https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=6426
--- Comment #61 from leigh scott ---
I have untagged the f36 build, see
https://twitter.com/zhenech/status/1589884553464020992
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the
https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=6426
--- Comment #60 from Luya Tshimbalanga ---
(In reply to leigh scott from comment #59)
> (In reply to Luya Tshimbalanga from comment #58)
> > Thank you Neal. Request to add package submitted. Co-maintainers are welcome
> > to contribute.
>
> I
https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=6426
--- Comment #59 from leigh scott ---
(In reply to Luya Tshimbalanga from comment #58)
> Thank you Neal. Request to add package submitted. Co-maintainers are welcome
> to contribute.
I have denied all your requests as you used the wrong
https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=6426
--- Comment #58 from Luya Tshimbalanga ---
Thank you Neal. Request to add package submitted. Co-maintainers are welcome to
contribute.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the
https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=6426
Neal Gompa changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #57 from Neal
https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=6426
--- Comment #56 from Luya Tshimbalanga ---
Latest update with added license:
SPEC: https://www.thefinalzone.net/packages/mesa-freeworld.spec
SRPM:
https://www.thefinalzone.net/packages/mesa-freeworld-22.2.2-1.fc37.src.rpm
--
You are
https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=6426
Nickolas Gupton changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||CorruptComputer@protonmail.
https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=6426
--- Comment #54 from Neal Gompa ---
(In reply to Vitaly Zaitsev from comment #53)
> Let's approve this quickly. F37 users won't be happy without missing VA-API
> support.
Most users won't notice one way or another, so I'm not rushing this.
--
https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=6426
Vitaly Zaitsev changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||vit...@easycoding.org
--- Comment #53
https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=6426
--- Comment #52 from Neal Gompa ---
This is basically the same packaging as what is present in Fedora, from the
same sources.
Review notes:
* Package naming is fine
* Package licensing is missing: no license files installed for subpackages
*
https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=6426
--- Comment #51 from Luya Tshimbalanga ---
Awaiting for the reviewer.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.___
rpmfusion-developers mailing list --
https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=6426
Andrew Blake changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||dmw5gj...@mozmail.com
--- Comment #50
https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=6426
--- Comment #49 from Luya Tshimbalanga ---
Err... appdata added.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.___
rpmfusion-developers mailing list --
https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=6426
--- Comment #48 from Luya Tshimbalanga ---
Appdata dated on the latest SRPM and SPEC, release remains unchanged.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.___
https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=6426
Neal Gompa changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=6426
--- Comment #46 from Nicolas Chauvet ---
(In reply to Luya Tshimbalanga from comment #45)
..
> > Is the AppStream metainfo file included? I don't see it mentioned anywhere
> > in the spec file.
>
> Not yet. If someone can write it by this
https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=6426
--- Comment #45 from Luya Tshimbalanga ---
(In reply to AsciiWolf from comment #44)
> (In reply to Luya Tshimbalanga from comment #41)
> > Updated to the latest release for review
> >
> > SPEC:
https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=6426
--- Comment #44 from AsciiWolf ---
(In reply to Luya Tshimbalanga from comment #41)
> Updated to the latest release for review
>
> SPEC: https://www.thefinalzone.net/packages/mesa-freeworld.spec
> SRPM:
>
https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=6426
leigh scott changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||leigh123li...@gmail.com
--- Comment #43
https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=6426
--- Comment #42 from Nicolas Chauvet ---
(In reply to Petr Menšík from comment #40)
...
> I think the situation with mesa vaapi drivers is much simpler. I think it
> does not even require to relogin, let alone restart X server or wayland. I
>
https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=6426
--- Comment #41 from Luya Tshimbalanga ---
Updated to the latest release for review
SPEC: https://www.thefinalzone.net/packages/mesa-freeworld.spec
SRPM:
https://www.thefinalzone.net/packages/mesa-freeworld-22.2.1-1.fc37.src.rpm
--
You are
https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=6426
--- Comment #40 from Petr Menšík ---
(In reply to Neal Gompa from comment #39)
> (In reply to Petr Menšík from comment #38)
> > Isn't that exactly what is needed here?
>
> It didn't work that well when we did it before with GL drivers, which
https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=6426
--- Comment #39 from Neal Gompa ---
(In reply to Petr Menšík from comment #38)
> I mean, it already has also priority setting, which might automatically
> switch to more capable version once installed. It should work also from GUI
> software
https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=6426
--- Comment #38 from Petr Menšík ---
I mean, it already has also priority setting, which might automatically switch
to more capable version once installed. It should work also from GUI software
panel and would avoid any conflict.
Isn't that
https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=6426
--- Comment #37 from Petr Menšík ---
Is there a reason to avoid alternatives package solution? Each package would
produce renamed so plugins, and real path would point to the chosen one. I
think it already implements common scenarios, right?
https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=6426
Gary Buhrmaster changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||gary.buhrmas...@gmail.com
---
https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=6426
--- Comment #35 from Nicolas Chauvet ---
See also
VAAPI request: https://github.com/intel/libva/issues/639
VDPAU request: https://gitlab.freedesktop.org/vdpau/libvdpau/-/issues/3
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list
https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=6426
--- Comment #34 from AsciiWolf ---
(In reply to Nicolas Chauvet from comment #33)
> Also I wonder if it would be easier to hack libvdpau/libva to use an
> alternative name for the backend libraries so we could override the fedora
> version
https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=6426
--- Comment #33 from Nicolas Chauvet ---
(In reply to AsciiWolf from comment #31)
> Just a note. Please, make sure that the package also contains valid
> AppStream metadata[1] and is showing in GNOME Software / KDE Discover the
This looks like
https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=6426
--- Comment #32 from Luya Tshimbalanga ---
(In reply to AsciiWolf from comment #31)
> Hello,
>
> Just a note. Please, make sure that the package also contains valid
> AppStream metadata[1] and is showing in GNOME Software / KDE Discover the
>
1 - 100 of 132 matches
Mail list logo
