Re: [Mageia-dev] gstreamer0.10-faac - package request
Hi, On Sun, 17 Jun 2012, Simple w wrote: I have been running arist-gtk to encode video and almost all presets fail because it needs gstreamer-faac, please see the output: Found only 1 preset working so far in arista, seams it uses gstreamer-faac in almost all presets... I uploaded a new arista to cauldron that uses vo-aacenc instead of faac. Only tested using commandline arista-transcode so not sure if arista-gtk also works and you likely need to run arista-transcode --reset-presets first because it copies the 'preset' files to $HOME/.arista/presets/ Christiaan
Re: [Mageia-dev] packaging amrwb ?
On Wed, 20 Jun 2012, Simple w wrote: In gstreamer0.10-plugins-bad we have: %if %build_plf %define build_amrwb 0 %define build_faac 0 %define build_faad 1 %define build_xvid 1 %define build_dts 1 %endif about faac was already discussed, but i dont understand why amrwb wasnt packaged so that apps can be build against it, it exists in svn, could anyone please clarify? We have vo-amrwbenc in tainted, this should be available to applications using gstreamer through ffmpeg (libavcodec). Christiaan
Re: [Mageia-dev] packaging amrwb ?
Le 20/06/2012 15:18, Pascal Terjan a écrit : Actiually we have two repos containing free software (core and tainted) and one repo conatining nonfree software. We have two repos not tainted by patents (core and nonfree) and one other (tainted). So either we redefine something about our repos or we add a fourth one or we don't build that kind of software. "software with patent issues should go in tainted" doesn't means "software with patent issues should never go elsewhere". And if this last rule is ever written anywhere, it's time to rediscuss it, with more connection to reality. Maybe we can track of the forbidden packages on the wiki, with the reason, and if at some point we list enough non free tainted packages, add the media. That would be a reasonable solution. But in this case it is more that non free and tainted, it does not allow us to distribute it. For amrwb, yes. For faac, no. -- Any circuit design must contain at least one part which is obsolete, two parts which are unobtainable and three parts which are still under development -- Murphy's Laws on Technology n°23
Re: [Mageia-dev] packaging amrwb ?
On Wed, Jun 20, 2012 at 2:11 PM, Oliver Burger wrote: > Am 20.06.2012 14:54, schrieb Guillaume Rousse: > >> Le 20/06/2012 14:26, Oliver Burger a écrit : >>> >>> Am 20.06.2012 14:15, schrieb Claire Robinson: I don't want to add fuel to the fire but just out of interest, why is it that we don't allow nonfree-tainted in Tainted? I understand that open source purists may not want it but are we catering to a minority and ignoring a majority? >>> >>> Well, above all we are an OpenSource project and one of our most central >>> values being an OpenSource project is promoting OpenSource software. >> >> I wonder why you can tolerate stuff as 'automatic skype downloader' or >> its flash equivalent being in the distribution then. >> >> This kind of code need constant efforts on packager side to keep them >> up-to-date, whereas even the most clueless end user could easily >> download and install it manually. The ratio between the developper time >> spent and the added value for end user is quite low. >> >> On the other hand, this codec issue is totally obscure for any end user, >> and the skills needed to rebuild the whole software chain is way out of >> scope for the average mageia target population. >> >> So, it would be far more consistent to either follow the debian way of >> life, and get rid of flash and skype downloaders, or to make life easier >> for end-users, just by adding this miserable faac package in less >> problematic repository. > > Actiually we have two repos containing free software (core and tainted) and > one repo conatining nonfree software. > We have two repos not tainted by patents (core and nonfree) and one other > (tainted). > So either we redefine something about our repos or we add a fourth one or we > don't build that kind of software. Maybe we can track of the forbidden packages on the wiki, with the reason, and if at some point we list enough non free tainted packages, add the media. But in this case it is more that non free and tainted, it does not allow us to distribute it.
Re: [Mageia-dev] packaging amrwb ?
Am 20.06.2012 14:54, schrieb Guillaume Rousse: Le 20/06/2012 14:26, Oliver Burger a écrit : Am 20.06.2012 14:15, schrieb Claire Robinson: I don't want to add fuel to the fire but just out of interest, why is it that we don't allow nonfree-tainted in Tainted? I understand that open source purists may not want it but are we catering to a minority and ignoring a majority? Well, above all we are an OpenSource project and one of our most central values being an OpenSource project is promoting OpenSource software. I wonder why you can tolerate stuff as 'automatic skype downloader' or its flash equivalent being in the distribution then. This kind of code need constant efforts on packager side to keep them up-to-date, whereas even the most clueless end user could easily download and install it manually. The ratio between the developper time spent and the added value for end user is quite low. On the other hand, this codec issue is totally obscure for any end user, and the skills needed to rebuild the whole software chain is way out of scope for the average mageia target population. So, it would be far more consistent to either follow the debian way of life, and get rid of flash and skype downloaders, or to make life easier for end-users, just by adding this miserable faac package in less problematic repository. Actiually we have two repos containing free software (core and tainted) and one repo conatining nonfree software. We have two repos not tainted by patents (core and nonfree) and one other (tainted). So either we redefine something about our repos or we add a fourth one or we don't build that kind of software. Oliver -- Oliver Burger aka obgr_seneca Mageia contributor
[Mageia-dev] Problems with package versions
Hi there, I just noticed that we do have some starnge package versions: [root@beteigeuze qgis]# urpmf --name -f -m lib64avcodec | sort lib64avcodec53-0.10.3-1.mga2.tainted.x86_64:tainted_release lib64avcodec54-0.11.1-1.mga3.tainted.x86_64:tainted_release lib64avcodec54-0.11.1-1.mga3.x86_64:core_release So we have libavcodec53 and libavcodec54 in tainted but only libavcodec54 in core. Shouldn't the old libavcodec be removed from tainted as well? So my builds won't jump me into the face :D Oliver -- Oliver Burger aka obgr_seneca Mageia contributor
Re: [Mageia-dev] packaging amrwb ?
Le 20/06/2012 14:26, Oliver Burger a écrit : Am 20.06.2012 14:15, schrieb Claire Robinson: I don't want to add fuel to the fire but just out of interest, why is it that we don't allow nonfree-tainted in Tainted? I understand that open source purists may not want it but are we catering to a minority and ignoring a majority? Well, above all we are an OpenSource project and one of our most central values being an OpenSource project is promoting OpenSource software. I wonder why you can tolerate stuff as 'automatic skype downloader' or its flash equivalent being in the distribution then. This kind of code need constant efforts on packager side to keep them up-to-date, whereas even the most clueless end user could easily download and install it manually. The ratio between the developper time spent and the added value for end user is quite low. On the other hand, this codec issue is totally obscure for any end user, and the skills needed to rebuild the whole software chain is way out of scope for the average mageia target population. So, it would be far more consistent to either follow the debian way of life, and get rid of flash and skype downloaders, or to make life easier for end-users, just by adding this miserable faac package in less problematic repository. -- BOFH excuse #105: UPS interrupted the server's power
Re: [Mageia-dev] packaging amrwb ?
So you are saying that someone who wants to have free and nonfree software in separate repositories is an open source purist and a minority, but you don't want to add fuel to the fire ? Nope, I was just interested as to the reason. You say purist like it's a bad thing.. :P
Re: [Mageia-dev] packaging amrwb ?
On Wed, 20 Jun 2012, Claire Robinson wrote: > On 20/06/12 13:05, Oliver Burger wrote: >> Am 20.06.2012 13:45, schrieb Simple w: >>> Appears to be different from faac case, because this one doesnt have a >>> GPL license, so it could be in non-free repository. >> The issue with faac is not, that it's partly GPL, the problem is, it's >> partly nonfree. >> Packages that are _pure_ OpenSource and patented are going into tainted. >> Packages that are non-free and not patented are going into nonfree. >> But this is nonfree and patented, unless someeone can prove me and >> wikipedia wrong. >> So it's a no-go. >> >> Oliver >> > > I don't want to add fuel to the fire but just out of interest, why is it > that we don't allow nonfree-tainted in Tainted? > > I understand that open source purists may not want it but are we catering > to a minority and ignoring a majority? So you are saying that someone who wants to have free and nonfree software in separate repositories is an open source purist and a minority, but you don't want to add fuel to the fire ?
Re: [Mageia-dev] packaging amrwb ?
Le 20/06/2012 14:15, Claire Robinson a écrit : I don't want to add fuel to the fire but just out of interest, why is it that we don't allow nonfree-tainted in Tainted? Heaven ! You would violate the fondemental rule that says 'thou should not put in a subdirectory called "tainted" any package whose license is not a trully and pure open-source one, because poor unaware end-users could be contaminated by such filth and corruption'. -- BOFH excuse #189: SCSI's too wide.
Re: [Mageia-dev] packaging amrwb ?
Am 20.06.2012 14:15, schrieb Claire Robinson: I don't want to add fuel to the fire but just out of interest, why is it that we don't allow nonfree-tainted in Tainted? I understand that open source purists may not want it but are we catering to a minority and ignoring a majority? Well, above all we are an OpenSource project and one of our most central values being an OpenSource project is promoting OpenSource software. Oliver -- Oliver Burger aka obgr_seneca Mageia contributor
Re: [Mageia-dev] packaging amrwb ?
On Wed, 20 Jun 2012, Oliver Burger wrote: > Am 20.06.2012 13:45, schrieb Simple w: >> Appears to be different from faac case, because this one doesnt have a >> GPL license, so it could be in non-free repository. > The issue with faac is not, that it's partly GPL, the problem is, it's > partly nonfree. > Packages that are _pure_ OpenSource and patented are going into tainted. > Packages that are non-free and not patented are going into nonfree. > But this is nonfree and patented, unless someeone can prove me and > wikipedia wrong. > So it's a no-go. Actually we are not allowed to distribute this program without signing an agreement with them : http://www.voiceage.com/openinit_amrwb_eula.php So the only suitable repository would be the "copyright-violations" repository.
Re: [Mageia-dev] packaging amrwb ?
On 20/06/12 13:05, Oliver Burger wrote: Am 20.06.2012 13:45, schrieb Simple w: Appears to be different from faac case, because this one doesnt have a GPL license, so it could be in non-free repository. The issue with faac is not, that it's partly GPL, the problem is, it's partly nonfree. Packages that are _pure_ OpenSource and patented are going into tainted. Packages that are non-free and not patented are going into nonfree. But this is nonfree and patented, unless someeone can prove me and wikipedia wrong. So it's a no-go. Oliver I don't want to add fuel to the fire but just out of interest, why is it that we don't allow nonfree-tainted in Tainted? I understand that open source purists may not want it but are we catering to a minority and ignoring a majority? Claire
Re: [Mageia-dev] packaging amrwb ?
On Wed, 20 Jun 2012, Simple w wrote: > 2012/6/20 Oliver Burger : > > Am 20.06.2012 12:45, schrieb Simple w: > > > >> about faac was already discussed, but i dont understand why amrwb > >> wasnt packaged so that apps can be build against it, it exists in svn, > >> could anyone please clarify? > >> > >> I see that amrwd doesnt have the same problems that faac has, so it > >> could easily go to the non-free repository since its under a > >> commercial license. > > > > According to wikipedia it's patented as well. So it's the same issue. > > Appears to be different from faac case, because this one doesnt have a > GPL license, so it could be in non-free repository. It seems the license doesn't allow distribution of compiled versions, so it's not suitable for nonfree repository.
Re: [Mageia-dev] packaging amrwb ?
Am 20.06.2012 13:45, schrieb Simple w: Appears to be different from faac case, because this one doesnt have a GPL license, so it could be in non-free repository. The issue with faac is not, that it's partly GPL, the problem is, it's partly nonfree. Packages that are _pure_ OpenSource and patented are going into tainted. Packages that are non-free and not patented are going into nonfree. But this is nonfree and patented, unless someeone can prove me and wikipedia wrong. So it's a no-go. Oliver -- Oliver Burger aka obgr_seneca Mageia contributor
Re: [Mageia-dev] packaging amrwb ?
20.06.2012 14:45, Simple w kirjutas: > 2012/6/20 Oliver Burger : >> Am 20.06.2012 12:45, schrieb Simple w: >> >>> about faac was already discussed, but i dont understand why amrwb >>> wasnt packaged so that apps can be build against it, it exists in svn, >>> could anyone please clarify? >>> >>> I see that amrwd doesnt have the same problems that faac has, so it >>> could easily go to the non-free repository since its under a >>> commercial license. >> According to wikipedia it's patented as well. So it's the same issue. > Appears to be different from faac case, because this one doesnt have a > GPL license, so it could be in non-free repository. How does it differ if it's patented? -- Sander
Re: [Mageia-dev] packaging amrwb ?
2012/6/20 Oliver Burger : > Am 20.06.2012 12:45, schrieb Simple w: > >> about faac was already discussed, but i dont understand why amrwb >> wasnt packaged so that apps can be build against it, it exists in svn, >> could anyone please clarify? >> >> I see that amrwd doesnt have the same problems that faac has, so it >> could easily go to the non-free repository since its under a >> commercial license. > > According to wikipedia it's patented as well. So it's the same issue. Appears to be different from faac case, because this one doesnt have a GPL license, so it could be in non-free repository. This is whats in COPYING: The 3GPP TS 26.204 V 10.0.0 reference code has a commercial license. To use package compiled by this code, you may need a license from 3GPP/Via Licensing. The wrapper code is released under BSD-3 style license: Copyright (c) 2012, Stanislav Brabec All rights reserved. Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or without modification, are permitted provided that the following conditions are met: * Redistributions of source code must retain the above copyright notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer. * Redistributions in binary form must reproduce the above copyright notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer in the documentation and/or other materials provided with the distribution. * Neither the name of the Novell nor the names of its contributors may be used to endorse or promote products derived from this software without specific prior written permission. > Oliver > > -- > Oliver Burger aka obgr_seneca > > Mageia contributor
Re: [Mageia-dev] packaging amrwb ?
Am 20.06.2012 12:45, schrieb Simple w: about faac was already discussed, but i dont understand why amrwb wasnt packaged so that apps can be build against it, it exists in svn, could anyone please clarify? I see that amrwd doesnt have the same problems that faac has, so it could easily go to the non-free repository since its under a commercial license. According to wikipedia it's patented as well. So it's the same issue. Oliver -- Oliver Burger aka obgr_seneca Mageia contributor
[Mageia-dev] packaging amrwb ?
Hi, In gstreamer0.10-plugins-bad we have: %if %build_plf %define build_amrwb 0 %define build_faac 0 %define build_faad 1 %define build_xvid 1 %define build_dts 1 %endif about faac was already discussed, but i dont understand why amrwb wasnt packaged so that apps can be build against it, it exists in svn, could anyone please clarify? I see that amrwd doesnt have the same problems that faac has, so it could easily go to the non-free repository since its under a commercial license.
Re: [Mageia-dev] [changelog] [RPM] cauldron core/release lmms-0.4.13-3.mga3
Le 20/06/2012 11:32, D.Morgan a écrit : On Wed, Jun 20, 2012 at 11:17 AM, Damien Lallement wrote: Le 20/06/2012 07:24, Thierry Vignaud a écrit : On 20 June 2012 01:37, dams wrote: dams 0.4.13-3.mga3: + Revision: 262020 - update icon for a better render - add 'fltk-devel' as BuildRequires - add patchs from fedora to fix mga#6466 That is? If you check spec file, there were no patchs before. So, easy to see that they all come from fedora. :-) Or perhaps "That is?" was for anything else? this was more for "what is bug 6466?". This is better to explain shortly what the bugs are about instead of just adding the bug number. Ok, thank you father. :-) So, do I need to propedit my previous commit or "nevermind"? -- Damien Lallement twitter: damsweb - IRC: damsweb/coincoin
Re: [Mageia-dev] [changelog] [RPM] cauldron core/release lmms-0.4.13-3.mga3
On Wed, Jun 20, 2012 at 11:17 AM, Damien Lallement wrote: > Le 20/06/2012 07:24, Thierry Vignaud a écrit : > >> On 20 June 2012 01:37, dams wrote: >>> >>> dams 0.4.13-3.mga3: >>> + Revision: 262020 >>> - update icon for a better render >>> - add 'fltk-devel' as BuildRequires >>> - add patchs from fedora to fix mga#6466 >> >> >> That is? > > > If you check spec file, there were no patchs before. > So, easy to see that they all come from fedora. :-) > > Or perhaps "That is?" was for anything else? this was more for "what is bug 6466?". This is better to explain shortly what the bugs are about instead of just adding the bug number.
Re: [Mageia-dev] [changelog] [RPM] cauldron core/release lmms-0.4.13-3.mga3
Le 20/06/2012 07:24, Thierry Vignaud a écrit : On 20 June 2012 01:37, dams wrote: dams 0.4.13-3.mga3: + Revision: 262020 - update icon for a better render - add 'fltk-devel' as BuildRequires - add patchs from fedora to fix mga#6466 That is? If you check spec file, there were no patchs before. So, easy to see that they all come from fedora. :-) Or perhaps "That is?" was for anything else? -- Damien Lallement twitter: damsweb - IRC: damsweb/coincoin
Re: [Mageia-dev] [packages-commits] [261308] Imported from Fedora RawHide
On 18 June 2012 16:40, Colin Guthrie wrote: This package shouldn't have been imported. It was already present as "muparser". >>> I guess/hope it's imported like this because muparser 1.34 broke scidavis & >>> qwplot so we stick to 1.32 >> >> If it was reimported for this reason, then muparser / muParser names are >> confusing. If muparser 1.32 should be kept for some reason in parrallel >> with newer versions, I think the package should be renamed to muparser1.32 >> instead. > > Yup +1 here. muParser is against our packaging guidelines for package > names anyway. To prevent this to happen again & again, it would be nice if mgarepo import would refuse to import such packages with upcase letters...
Re: [Mageia-dev] net_applet segfaulting
On 19 June 2012 22:59, Robert Fox wrote: >> > So for some unexplained reason it segfaults and I have to start it >> > again. >> >> Please: >> 1) install perl-debug glibc-debug perl-Glib-debug perl-Gtk2-debug >> gtk2.0-debug gdb >> 2) run "gdb perl /usr/bin/net_applet" >> 3) type "run" to start it from the debuger >> 4) type "bt" to get a backstrace once it segfaulted >> 5) paste the backtrace in a text file you'll _attach_ to a bug report > > Thanks for that Thierry - before I go through the trouble, it would be > helpful to know if this problem is affecting more than myself. I don't > have the debug repository set-up on this machine and it would take some > time because I am traveling right now and don't have a good connection. > > Also, it looks like this bug could be the same: > https://bugs.mageia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=6138 No it'sn't. Yours is a segfault, this one is a crash You'll have to open a BR and provide the backtrace...
Re: [Mageia-dev] mentors + apprentices
Le 14/06/12 17:18,Robert Wood nous adresse ces quelques mots : > I am [hopefully] now going to have a bit more spare time as my workload > is starting to lessen and it would be worth sorting out a mentor for me. > I am in the UK. > > Rob Hey Rob, please register on https://wiki.mageia.org/en/Becoming_a_Mageia_Packager Cheers, -- Malo
Re: [Mageia-dev] mentors + apprentices
On Wed, Jun 20, 2012 at 7:48 AM, AL13N wrote: > Op dinsdag 19 juni 2012 22:31:37 schreef Agron Selimaj: > [...] >> Hey Sandro, >> >> I looked as some packages that have no maintainer and I think uDev and Wine >> are some technologies that have fascinated me in Linux. I would like to >> take one of them over. What do you think? >> >> BTW, if you are too busy at this time I can always wait or look for another >> mentor to help me out if you say so. So far I have seen the good intention >> that you want to mentor but you haven't had the time to even say 'hi'. >> >> //Agron > > Just a small note: udev is now inside systemd, and that already has a > maintainer but "help" is welcome anyway
