Re: [packman] An advice regarding Kodi packages
Hi Sagi, On Mon, 22 Feb 2016 09:44:06 +0200 Sagi Ben-Akiva wrote: > Kodi Jarvis 16.0 was released yesterday, and it is already being > built in my home project. > > https://pmbs.links2linux.de/package/show/home:sagiben/kodi.binary-addons > https://pmbs.links2linux.de/package/show/home:sagiben/kodi > > In latest Kodi, all the binary addons were branched out from Kodi > github repository to a separate repositories. > > I did the same and divided Kodi and it's binary addons into 2 > packages : kodi, kodi.binary-addons. > > My questions are : > 1. Do you think we should keep them in 2 separate projects or merge > them to one ? > 2. Should we provide a standalone package for each binary addon ? I would prefer option 1 - at least for the moment. I do not know how other distributions handle this, but it might be a dependency nightmare if any binary addon is separate. Just a question: you have also kodi-pvr.addons in your repo, is this a subset of the binary.addons? Greetings, Stefan -- Stefan Botter zu Hause Bremen pgpq3M3z6fakD.pgp Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ Packman mailing list Packman@links2linux.de http://lists.links2linux.de/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/packman
Re: [packman] An advice regarding Kodi packages
Hi Stefan, On Mon, Feb 22, 2016 at 8:11 PM, Stefan Botter wrote: > Hi Sagi, > > On Mon, 22 Feb 2016 09:44:06 +0200 > Sagi Ben-Akiva wrote: > > Kodi Jarvis 16.0 was released yesterday, and it is already being > > built in my home project. > > > > https://pmbs.links2linux.de/package/show/home:sagiben/kodi.binary-addons > > https://pmbs.links2linux.de/package/show/home:sagiben/kodi > > > > In latest Kodi, all the binary addons were branched out from Kodi > > github repository to a separate repositories. > > > > I did the same and divided Kodi and it's binary addons into 2 > > packages : kodi, kodi.binary-addons. > > > > My questions are : > > 1. Do you think we should keep them in 2 separate projects or merge > > them to one ? > > 2. Should we provide a standalone package for each binary addon ? > > I would prefer option 1 - at least for the moment. I do not know how > other distributions handle this, but it might be a dependency nightmare > if any binary addon is separate. > > Kodi team builds the packages for Ubuntu and they have a single package for each addon. https://launchpad.net/~team-xbmc/+archive/ubuntu/ppa?field.series_filter=trusty Fedora does the same : http://download1.rpmfusion.org/free/fedora/releases/22/Everything/x86_64/os/repoview/letter_k.group.html I can create an autogenerate spec file for the binary addons which will build all binary addons and put them in a separate package for each addons. > Just a question: you have also kodi-pvr.addons in your repo, is this a > subset of the binary.addons? > Yes, from Kodi 15.0 all pvr binary addons were moved out from Kodi github repository (the repo still have the name xbmc) and were taken out from xbmc tar file, kodi build mechanism was modified to clone each addon and build it. Other binary addons like screensaver etc. were left in kodi repository. In Kodi 16.0 all binary addons were moved to separate repositories and are being built in the same way. packman and obs do not allow to run git during the build process so we had to come up with a script which pre-process xbmc addons build mechanism and download the tarballs for us. pvr.addons rpm will be replaced by binary-addons rpm. There are pros and cons for each option : 1. Kodi code changes more frequently than the binary addons we do not need to build everything on each change. 2. rpm size are ~ 20MB each, user can decide to install both or just the core. If we will have separate package for every addon the user will be able to install just the addons that he needs. I, for instance, use Kodi for more than 4 years and uses 2 or 3 maybe 4 binary addons out of 53. 1. Kodi code is needs for both projects 2. Modification for different architectures will be needs in both projects 3. Maintaining dependencies 4. One project to rule them all Sagi. > > Greetings, > > Stefan > -- > Stefan Botter zu Hause > Bremen > > ___ > Packman mailing list > Packman@links2linux.de > http://lists.links2linux.de/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/packman > ___ Packman mailing list Packman@links2linux.de http://lists.links2linux.de/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/packman
Re: [packman] An advice regarding Kodi packages
Hey, On 22.02.2016 20:53, Sagi Ben-Akiva wrote: On Mon, Feb 22, 2016 at 8:11 PM, Stefan Botter wrote: On Mon, 22 Feb 2016 09:44:06 +0200 Sagi Ben-Akiva wrote: 1. Do you think we should keep them in 2 separate projects or merge them to one ? 2. Should we provide a standalone package for each binary addon ? I would prefer option 1 Kodi team builds the packages for Ubuntu and they have a single package for each addon. I would definitively mimic the official packaging. This will be way less confusing for people using the package as I suspect this will quickly be reflected in the official documentation... Henne -- Henne Vogelsang http://hennevogel.de "To die. In the rain. Alone." Ernest Hemingway ___ Packman mailing list Packman@links2linux.de http://lists.links2linux.de/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/packman
Re: [packman] An advice regarding Kodi packages
> I would definitively mimic the official packaging. Me too. But maybe pseudo-packages for groups of addons would be usefull, e.g. kodi-addons-video that requires all video addons but does not contain any addon, and a pseudo-package kodi-addons-all that requires all addons. This should be efficient not only for installation of some addons but also for installation of some addons and update of all or only a single addon. Markus ___ Packman mailing list Packman@links2linux.de http://lists.links2linux.de/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/packman
Re: [packman] An advice regarding Kodi packages
Hey, On 23.02.2016 13:26, Markus Kohm wrote: I would definitively mimic the official packaging. Me too. But maybe pseudo-packages for groups of addons would be usefull, e.g. kodi-addons-video that requires all video addons but does not contain any addon, and a pseudo-package kodi-addons-all that requires all addons. That's just another layer of indirection isn't it? Whatever Sagi deems neccesarry should be required by the main package. The rest can be handled by weak dependencies (Recommends). Henne -- Henne Vogelsang http://hennevogel.de "To die. In the rain. Alone." Ernest Hemingway ___ Packman mailing list Packman@links2linux.de http://lists.links2linux.de/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/packman
Re: [packman] An advice regarding Kodi packages
Hi, On Tue, 23 Feb 2016 13:53:11 +0100 Hendrik Vogelsang wrote: > That's just another layer of indirection isn't it? Whatever Sagi > deems neccesarry should be required by the main package. The rest can > be handled by weak dependencies (Recommends). I am not sure if we provide the Recommends. The full repo is generated on vesta using an older version of createrepo (old Debian), but Marc should know. if the individual binary packages for kodi are on github in separate repos, we can set up these packages using source services, almost generic, like done with vdr (in OBS). Greetings, Stefan -- Stefan Botter zu Hause Bremen pgpbw7T5aJ5ui.pgp Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ Packman mailing list Packman@links2linux.de http://lists.links2linux.de/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/packman
Re: [packman] An advice regarding Kodi packages
> > if the individual binary packages for kodi are on github in separate > repos, we can set up these packages using source services, almost > generic, like done with vdr (in OBS). > > Yes they are, each binary addon is maintained in a separate github repo, for example : adsp.freesurround https://github.com/kodi-adsp/adsp.freesurround audiodecoder.qsf https://github.com/notspiff/audiodecoder pvr.demo https://github.com/kodi-pvr/pvr.demo The list of all the addons is here: https://github.com/xbmc/repo-binary-addons can you share an example ? Currently I modified binary addons spec file to build a separate package for each addon, and decided to keep kodi and kodi.binary-addons in 2 separate projects. I would like someone to review my modification before submitting. Thank you, Sagi. ___ Packman mailing list Packman@links2linux.de http://lists.links2linux.de/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/packman
Re: [packman] An advice regarding Kodi packages
Hi, I've submitted a pull request for kodi 16.0 and binary addons packages. Can someone review the request ? Thanks, Sagi. On Feb 25, 2016 11:05, "Sagi Ben-Akiva" wrote: > > >> if the individual binary packages for kodi are on github in separate >> repos, we can set up these packages using source services, almost >> generic, like done with vdr (in OBS). >> >> > Yes they are, each binary addon is maintained in a separate github repo, > for example : > adsp.freesurround https://github.com/kodi-adsp/adsp.freesurround > audiodecoder.qsf https://github.com/notspiff/audiodecoder > pvr.demo https://github.com/kodi-pvr/pvr.demo > > The list of all the addons is here: > https://github.com/xbmc/repo-binary-addons > > can you share an example ? > > > Currently I modified binary addons spec file to build a separate package > for each addon, > and decided to keep kodi and kodi.binary-addons in 2 separate projects. > > I would like someone to review my modification before submitting. > > Thank you, > Sagi. > ___ Packman mailing list Packman@links2linux.de http://lists.links2linux.de/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/packman
Re: [packman] An advice regarding Kodi packages
On Tue, Mar 08, Sagi Ben-Akiva wrote: > I've submitted a pull request for kodi 16.0 and binary addons packages. > Can someone review the request ? What happend to libSOIL? Its missing in Factory, so the addon package does not build. Olaf ___ Packman mailing list Packman@links2linux.de http://lists.links2linux.de/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/packman
Re: [packman] An advice regarding Kodi packages
On Tue, 8 Mar 2016 12:44:25 +0100 Olaf Hering wrote: > On Tue, Mar 08, Sagi Ben-Akiva wrote: > > > I've submitted a pull request for kodi 16.0 and binary addons > > packages. Can someone review the request ? > > What happend to libSOIL? Its missing in Factory, so the addon package > does not build. It is also not in Tumbleweed. Should we link the package to packman for Factory and Tumbleweed? Or is it really needed - if not, it could be pulled in conditionally in the package for suse_version <= 1320. Greetings, Stefan -- Stefan Botter zu Hause Bremen pgpn7vicl3BHj.pgp Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ Packman mailing list Packman@links2linux.de http://lists.links2linux.de/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/packman
Re: [packman] An advice regarding Kodi packages
Hi, On Tue, 8 Mar 2016 13:52:25 +0100 Stefan Botter wrote: > On Tue, 8 Mar 2016 12:44:25 +0100 > Olaf Hering wrote: > > > On Tue, Mar 08, Sagi Ben-Akiva wrote: > > > > > I've submitted a pull request for kodi 16.0 and binary addons > > > packages. Can someone review the request ? > > > > What happend to libSOIL? Its missing in Factory, so the addon > > package does not build. > > It is also not in Tumbleweed. Should we link the package to packman > for Factory and Tumbleweed? Or is it really needed - if not, it could > be pulled in conditionally in the package for suse_version <= 1320. I pulled in libSOIL from openSUSE:games to Multimedia, but recompressed the source zip with a shorter directory name, it is built for Tumbleweed and Factory only. Once Sagi's submitted packages build fine for Tumbleweed, I will accept both kodi packages - should be within the hour. kodi still needs pkgconfig(platform) for Factory, can someone more into kodi/platform have a look at this? Greetings, Stefan -- Stefan Botter zu Hause Bremen pgpbkzZMsW2uh.pgp Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ Packman mailing list Packman@links2linux.de http://lists.links2linux.de/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/packman
Re: [packman] An advice regarding Kodi packages
Hi, Le 09/03/2016 10:29, Stefan Botter a écrit : Hi, On Tue, 8 Mar 2016 13:52:25 +0100 Stefan Botter wrote: On Tue, 8 Mar 2016 12:44:25 +0100 Olaf Hering wrote: On Tue, Mar 08, Sagi Ben-Akiva wrote: I've submitted a pull request for kodi 16.0 and binary addons packages. Can someone review the request ? What happend to libSOIL? Its missing in Factory, so the addon package does not build. It is also not in Tumbleweed. Should we link the package to packman for Factory and Tumbleweed? Or is it really needed - if not, it could be pulled in conditionally in the package for suse_version <= 1320. I pulled in libSOIL from openSUSE:games to Multimedia, but recompressed the source zip with a shorter directory name, it is built for Tumbleweed and Factory only. Once Sagi's submitted packages build fine for Tumbleweed, I will accept both kodi packages - should be within the hour. kodi still needs pkgconfig(platform) for Factory, can someone more into kodi/platform have a look at this? Kodi does not need it anymore. But kodi addons package does. I have some fixes for kodi 16.0 for ARM. I will push them once kodi will be updated. Guillaume Greetings, Stefan ___ Packman mailing list Packman@links2linux.de http://lists.links2linux.de/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/packman ___ Packman mailing list Packman@links2linux.de http://lists.links2linux.de/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/packman
Re: [packman] An advice regarding Kodi packages
Hi, On Wed, 9 Mar 2016 10:29:56 +0100 Stefan Botter wrote: > Once Sagi's submitted packages build fine for Tumbleweed, I will > accept both kodi packages - should be within the hour. Took longer than expected, I had to make some rather crude patches to get some addons to compile with gcc 5.x used in Tumbleweed and Factory. If there is someone more fluent in gcc changes between 4.8 and 5.x, please have a look at my changes to kodi.binary-addons. Sagi: can you please pull my changes in your dev tree, there is also a fix for __DATE__ in several places. Greetings, Stefan -- Stefan Botter zu Hause Bremen pgpSKCeTUuOk2.pgp Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ Packman mailing list Packman@links2linux.de http://lists.links2linux.de/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/packman
Re: [packman] An advice regarding Kodi packages
Hi, Thank you Stefan and Guillaume for your modifications and accepting the change. I see that kodi.binary-addons build are failing because the following patches are missing : kodi.binary-addons-audiodecoder.ncsf-gcc5.3.patch kodi.binary-addons-screensavers.rsxs-upstream-stdbool_h.patch line 70: /home/abuild/rpmbuild/SOURCES/kodi.binary-addons-audiodecoder.ncsf-gcc5.3.patch: No such file or directory Thanks, Sagi. On Wed, Mar 9, 2016 at 4:55 PM, Stefan Botter wrote: > Hi, > > On Wed, 9 Mar 2016 10:29:56 +0100 > Stefan Botter wrote: > > Once Sagi's submitted packages build fine for Tumbleweed, I will > > accept both kodi packages - should be within the hour. > > Took longer than expected, I had to make some rather crude patches to > get some addons to compile with gcc 5.x used in Tumbleweed and Factory. > If there is someone more fluent in gcc changes between 4.8 and 5.x, > please have a look at my changes to kodi.binary-addons. > > Sagi: can you please pull my changes in your dev tree, there is also a > fix for __DATE__ in several places. > > > Greetings, > > Stefan > -- > Stefan Botter zu Hause > Bremen > > ___ > Packman mailing list > Packman@links2linux.de > http://lists.links2linux.de/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/packman > ___ Packman mailing list Packman@links2linux.de http://lists.links2linux.de/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/packman
Re: [packman] An advice regarding Kodi packages
Hi, On Wed, 9 Mar 2016 20:50:59 +0200 Sagi Ben-Akiva wrote: > Hi, > > Thank you Stefan and Guillaume for your modifications and accepting > the change. > > I see that kodi.binary-addons build are failing because the following > patches are missing : > kodi.binary-addons-audiodecoder.ncsf-gcc5.3.patch > kodi.binary-addons-screensavers.rsxs-upstream-stdbool_h.patch > > line > 70: > /home/abuild/rpmbuild/SOURCES/kodi.binary-addons-audiodecoder.ncsf-gcc5.3.patch: > No such file or directory Oh fsck! was in a hurry Yesterday... Just branched it out again and added the patches. Will submit it once I see all build succeeding. Greetings, Stefan -- Stefan Botter zu Hause Bremen pgpWvjhJHLCF7.pgp Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ Packman mailing list Packman@links2linux.de http://lists.links2linux.de/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/packman
Re: [packman] An advice regarding Kodi packages
Hi, Le 10/03/2016 08:23, Stefan Botter a écrit : Hi, On Wed, 9 Mar 2016 20:50:59 +0200 Sagi Ben-Akiva wrote: Hi, Thank you Stefan and Guillaume for your modifications and accepting the change. I see that kodi.binary-addons build are failing because the following patches are missing : kodi.binary-addons-audiodecoder.ncsf-gcc5.3.patch kodi.binary-addons-screensavers.rsxs-upstream-stdbool_h.patch line 70: /home/abuild/rpmbuild/SOURCES/kodi.binary-addons-audiodecoder.ncsf-gcc5.3.patch: No such file or directory Oh fsck! was in a hurry Yesterday... Just branched it out again and added the patches. Will submit it once I see all build succeeding. It is failing on: error: 'hdhomerun_discover_find_devices_custom_v2' was not declared in this scope Because it must use a newer libhdhomerun. See: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=798069 So, I guess we should update our libhdhomerun which is very old (2010). https://pmbs.links2linux.de/package/show/Multimedia/libhdhomerun Guillaume ___ Packman mailing list Packman@links2linux.de http://lists.links2linux.de/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/packman
Re: [packman] An advice regarding Kodi packages
On Thu, 10 Mar 2016 09:39:00 +0100 Guillaume Gardet wrote: > It is failing on: > error: 'hdhomerun_discover_find_devices_custom_v2' was not > declared in this scope Because it must use a newer libhdhomerun. See: > https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=798069 > > So, I guess we should update our libhdhomerun which is very old > (2010). > https://pmbs.links2linux.de/package/show/Multimedia/libhdhomerun Yes, looks like it. Sagi, you have a newer libhdhomerun in your home:sagiben, can you please sr it to Multimedia? I will Submit my patches for kodi.binary-addons any minute now, and it should compile once the libhdhomerun is submitted to Multimedia. Greetings, Stefan -- Stefan Botter zu Hause Bremen pgpvEyEHUbkQH.pgp Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ Packman mailing list Packman@links2linux.de http://lists.links2linux.de/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/packman
Re: [packman] An advice regarding Kodi packages
Hi, Sorry I totally forgot that I've updated libhdhomerun in my home project. I've submitted a request. Thanks, Sagi. On Thu, Mar 10, 2016 at 11:10 AM, Stefan Botter wrote: > On Thu, 10 Mar 2016 09:39:00 +0100 > Guillaume Gardet wrote: > > It is failing on: > > error: 'hdhomerun_discover_find_devices_custom_v2' was not > > declared in this scope Because it must use a newer libhdhomerun. See: > > https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=798069 > > > > So, I guess we should update our libhdhomerun which is very old > > (2010). > > https://pmbs.links2linux.de/package/show/Multimedia/libhdhomerun > > Yes, looks like it. > Sagi, you have a newer libhdhomerun in your home:sagiben, can you > please sr it to Multimedia? > > I will Submit my patches for kodi.binary-addons any minute now, and it > should compile once the libhdhomerun is submitted to Multimedia. > > Greetings, > > Stefan > -- > Stefan Botter zu Hause > Bremen > > ___ > Packman mailing list > Packman@links2linux.de > http://lists.links2linux.de/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/packman > ___ Packman mailing list Packman@links2linux.de http://lists.links2linux.de/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/packman
