Re: Detecting Phonon version
On Thursday 07 May 2009 15:10:21 Will Stephenson wrote: > On Tuesday 05 May 2009 14:10:05 Matthias Kretz wrote: > > So, KDE 4.3 should require Phonon 4.3. Everything else needs to be > > optional (I already told Marco about this for mplayerthumbs). > > What did you tell him? Is he going to hack mplayerthumbs so it doesn't > require VideoWidget::snapshot() or remove it entirely? Dirk says this > failure to build kdemm vs phonon 4.3 is blocking 4.3beta1 tarballs. His answer is attached. Regards, Matthias -- ____ Matthias Kretz (Germany)<>< http://Vir.homelinux.org/ --- Begin Message --- Ok! i already did something about it, iirc, but currently it's still a hard dependency, you're right. I'll fix it soon (i'm without internet at home, so i have to use just some spare time at work) On Tue, May 5, 2009 at 2:07 PM, Matthias Kretz wrote: > Hi Marco, > > just one thing I just realized, you have a hard dependency on the snapshot > function in Phonon trunk, right? > > Better make that optional as there won't be a release of Phonon in the near > future (one new function doesn't make it release-worthy...). > > Regards, >Matthias > -- > > Matthias Kretz (Germany)<>< > http://Vir.homelinux.org/ > > --- End Message --- ___ release-team mailing list release-team@kde.org https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/release-team
Re: Detecting Phonon version
On Sunday 03 May 2009 13:33:19 Allen Winter wrote:
> On Saturday 02 May 2009 5:33:29 am Thiago Macieira wrote:
> > Hi
> >
> > I was trying to build kdereview/mplayerthumbs and it requires Phonon 4.4
> > (i.e., the trunk/kdesupport version), which is still unreleased. However,
> > I don't see any checks for the version number anywhere.
> >
> > FindPhonon.cmake does print the version number, which means the checking
> > is possible. But my question is: should we change this? Or should we
> > simply expect that people use the Phonon version that was (or will be)
> > released alongside that KDE version, or later?
>
> Seems a question for the Release Team and Matthias:
> Do we require Phonon 4.4 for KDE 4.3?
I'm not planning a Phonon release. Probably Qt Software will do the next
Phonon feature release together with Qt 4.6.
So, KDE 4.3 should require Phonon 4.3. Everything else needs to be optional (I
already told Marco about this for mplayerthumbs).
Regards,
Matthias
--
Matthias Kretz (Germany)<><
http://Vir.homelinux.org/
___
release-team mailing list
release-team@kde.org
https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/release-team
Re: automoc in kdesupport-issue
On Tuesday 22 July 2008 22:20:08 Alexander Neundorf wrote:
> On Tuesday 22 July 2008, Matthias Kretz wrote:
> > On Tuesday 22 July 2008 14:13:17 Dirk Mueller wrote:
> > > On Saturday 19 July 2008, Matthias Kretz wrote:
> > > > That's not entirely right. For the last beta I asked dirk to do the
> > > > automoc4 0.9.83 tarball. You can find it on ftp.kde.org.
> > >
> > > unstable/support/automoc4
> >
> > I suggest to have a toplevel directory for automoc4 and phonon and not
> > put it in support.
>
> Do you mean one toplevel directory for both or one for each ?
> E.g. akonadi also uses automoc, so this needs it too.
I was thinking of one for each. I.e.
pub/kde/stable/{automoc,phonon,akonadi}
pub/kde/unstable/{automoc,phonon,akonadi}
but I don't know what the general policy is for ftp...
--
Matthias Kretz (Germany)<><
http://Vir.homelinux.org/
[EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED],
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
___
release-team mailing list
release-team@kde.org
https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/release-team
Re: automoc in kdesupport-issue
On Tuesday 22 July 2008 14:13:17 Dirk Mueller wrote: > On Saturday 19 July 2008, Matthias Kretz wrote: > > That's not entirely right. For the last beta I asked dirk to do the > > automoc4 0.9.83 tarball. You can find it on ftp.kde.org. > > unstable/support/automoc4 I suggest to have a toplevel directory for automoc4 and phonon and not put it in support. > > I need an automoc4 0.9.84 release as soon as possible, though. (I already > > released one package on kde-apps.org that needs 0.9.84 when using cmake > > 2.6) > > which svn revision should we use for the new release? note that I don't > like the %_libdir dependency (it doesn't make sense to install a .cmake > file which is platform independent under /lib/ anyway). I'm staying out of the libdir discussion... aside from that I'm fine with tagging current svn as 0.9.84 and using it for the KDE 4.1/Phonon 4.2 release. It's not ready for 1.0 yet IMO, but it should get there soon. > > I think the automoc (and phonon for that matter) releases need a better > > place on ftp.kde.org. And either someone will need to take responsibility > > for those releases or I need to get access and instructions how to do > > them. > > I can put new tarballs there and give people access as needed, whatever is > preferred. I hwoever need the information which svn revision to tag or when > something got tagged, that I should create the tarball. > > While we talk about it, will there be a new phonon release for 4.1.0? :) I just tagged phonon. You can find it in tags/phonon/4.2.0 now. -- Matthias Kretz (Germany)<>< http://Vir.homelinux.org/ [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ release-team mailing list release-team@kde.org https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/release-team
Re: automoc in kdesupport-issue
On Saturday 19 July 2008 15:49:30 Alexander Neundorf wrote: > Hi, > > several weeks ago we (me and Matthias) moved automoc from kdelibs to > kdesupport so that the automoc-functionality ( #include "foo.moc" and all > the rest happens magically) can be used also by non-KDE apps, as e.g. > phonon, akonadi, etc.. > > This works so far, but we kept automoc in kdelibs so it could be used > optionally in case kdesupport wasn't current. We made automoc from > kdesupport mandatory a few weeks ago, so the first release which requires > automoc from kdesupport was 4.1RC1. > It seems this didn't go very smoothly. > There are some complaints from people who couldn't build KDE because they > didn't have automoc (from kdesupport). We haven't done an official separate > automoc release yet. That's not entirely right. For the last beta I asked dirk to do the automoc4 0.9.83 tarball. You can find it on ftp.kde.org. I need an automoc4 0.9.84 release as soon as possible, though. (I already released one package on kde-apps.org that needs 0.9.84 when using cmake 2.6) > How should this be handled ? > (I would like if kdesupport would be released together with the rest of > KDE, or at least be tagged, so later on it is easier to find a matching > version) I think the automoc (and phonon for that matter) releases need a better place on ftp.kde.org. And either someone will need to take responsibility for those releases or I need to get access and instructions how to do them. -- Matthias Kretz (Germany)<>< http://Vir.homelinux.org/ [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ release-team mailing list release-team@kde.org https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/release-team
Re: Phonon release
On Sunday 06 July 2008 16:43:37 Jorge Manuel B. S. Vicetto wrote: > Hi Folks. > > After talking on #kde-devel and #phonon today asking whether there was a > release or at least a snapshot for phonon, Thiago Macieira (thiago) told > me to mail you. > Can we please have a release for phonon or at least a snapshot? Here's the last release: ftp://ftp.kde.org/pub/kde/unstable/4.0.83/support Didn't this get announced? You can also find the tag in svn: http://websvn.kde.org/tags/phonon/4.1.83/ Regards, Matthias -- ____ Matthias Kretz (Germany)<>< http://Vir.homelinux.org/ [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ release-team mailing list release-team@kde.org https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/release-team
Re: Phonon backends, was Re: Goals? How are we doing?
On Monday 05 May 2008, Sebastian Kuegler wrote: > On Monday 05 May 2008 16:46:48 Allen Winter wrote: > > Here's a list of our goals for 4.1. > > Please provide a status update, if you can: > > > > - GStreamer, Quicktime, DirectShow9 Phonon backends > > This is something seems not solved yet. From re-reading related > discussions, I gather that the release strategy of Phonon looks like > Matthias describes: > > On Saturday 29 March 2008 11:36:41 Matthias Kretz wrote: > > On releases: > > - libphonon gets released with KDE and Qt. KDE 4.0 shipped libphonon 4.0, > > Qt 4.4 will ship libphonon 4.1, KDE 4.1 will ship libphonon 4.2 > > - phonon-xine will only get released with KDE > > - phonon-gstreamer get's released with Qt, but I will look into whether > > we want to release phonon-gstreamer with KDE 4.1, too > > - phonon-qt/ds will only get released with Qt unless some KDE-Windows/Mac > > developer wants to do something there > > Last signs on core-devel said that the phonon backends in kdereview > required a newer Qt version than qt-copy at that point in time. I assume > that as soon as 4.4 hits qt-copy that is solved (or maybe it even is > already, status?). So those backends could then go with libphonon 4.2 into > ... > > The question is wether we want to release the backends in kdebase or in > extragear? > > The QuickTime7 backend won't build outside Qt, so we won't release it (and > it probably doesn't make much sense to do so anyway). The question is how > much sense it makes to have our own releases for those backends as well. It > would be worth it when we want to add features and require them, and Qt > cannot be updated in the meantime. Not sure about the DS9 backend. > > In any case, those backends have been in kdereview forever, which isn't > good. I'd like to move the gstreamer backend out of kdereview and into either kdemultimedia or kdebase for KDE 4.1. After 4.1, I think phonon and its backends will have to release independently of KDE. The GStreamer backend for 4.1 has an important difference to the one in Qt4.4: It integrates correctly into the device preference settings - just like the phonon xine backend does already. I don't want to move any of the other backends as I don't work on those and can't test them. As I don't know of any KDE people working on them or anybody interested in getting them into a KDE 4.1 release I see no point in moving them to a KDE module. They just need some open repository until Phonon has found its right place. -- Matthias Kretz (Germany)<>< http://Vir.homelinux.org/ [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED] signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part. ___ release-team mailing list release-team@kde.org https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/release-team
Re: KDE/kdebase/runtime/phonon
On Saturday 15 December 2007, Dirk Mueller wrote: > On Friday 14 December 2007, Thiago Macieira wrote: > > No. And, in hindsight, it shouldn't have been committed to trunk. > > I forgot to ask for a Qt (not qt-copy) branch on Subversion. > > I think playground-multimedia would be a good place for it, together with > the other phonon backends. Yes, but whoever moves them, please put them in playground/multimedia/phonon not phonon-backends. I want to move the backends from the latter to phonon, too. -- ____ Matthias Kretz (Germany)<>< http://Vir.homelinux.org/ [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED] signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part. ___ release-team mailing list release-team@kde.org https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/release-team
Re: Audio questions
On Tuesday 25 September 2007, Tom Albers wrote:
> > > - https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=284171 (short version:
> > > lazy symbol resolving in glibc is not threadsafe and can deadlock) This
> > > bug can cause spurious deadlocks. If at all possible I'd like to see us
> > > requiring this
> > > glibc version (the fix was posted on Tue, 18 Sep 2007 so perhaps
> > > there's a bit of dreaming involved on my side...)
> >
> > Anyone who can comment on this?
>
> The debian-team thinks we should not 'depend' on it, only make a note in
> the requirements as in 'because of bug 897 we advise glibc version', where
> 897 is the bugreport from glibc. I suggest we do so.
Sounds good, perhaps we should, in addition, put a workaround inside
phonon-xine and setenv("LD_BIND_NOW", "1", 1) if compiling against an older
glibc? But probably I should ask this on a technical list?
--
Matthias Kretz (Germany)<><
http://Vir.homelinux.org/
[EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED],
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
___
release-team mailing list
release-team@kde.org
https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/release-team
Re: Sound help
> > > 5. Playing short sound files sometimes only plays the start of the sound > > > (which can be almost nothing). This is a big problem for notifications. > > > Some reported that this is a bug in xine-lib, but I have not looked into > > > the issue. > > This is the show-stopper issue for us in games and kde-edu. KTuberling > can be used to reproduce it if you need a test case. I would like to > help with Phonon debugging, but I am not sure how my skills could be > used. I can use the help of everybody that can install a debug version of xine-lib (get xine-lib 1.1.8 and build and install with "make debug" and "make debug-install") and use a debugger. /me goes and installs kdegames > Where would be a good place to coordinate this effort? Either #phonon or IRC or [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Also, is > the avkode backend still in development or in consideration for 4.0, as > it could potentially solve some xine-lib issues? The avkode backend is far away from release quality (currently it doesn't even compile). It needs a lot more work to get the media format support up to par with xine. -- Matthias Kretz (Germany)<>< http://Vir.homelinux.org/ [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED] pgpZ29a5bX7Fi.pgp Description: PGP signature ___ release-team mailing list release-team@kde.org https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/release-team
kdemultimedia
Hi, as long as nobody else steps up I'll try to act as Release Maintainer for kdemultimedia. Let me know what I just signed up to. :-) -- Matthias Kretz (Germany)<>< http://Vir.homelinux.org/ [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED] pgpxd9lwvxlFB.pgp Description: PGP signature ___ release-team mailing list release-team@kde.org https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/release-team
delay the Phonon freeze a bit more
Hi, would it be possible to delay the Phonon API freeze one or two more weeks? Reason: since I finally have other people looking at the API and questioning the design (i.e. Trolltech) we're able to improve quite a few things. Now I'd like to have another intensive week where we work on it together, but since I have an exam on July 18th, that'd be the last week of July. I need to know very soon so that we can arrange the flight accordingly. And please CC me, otherwise I'll have to read the archives and answer with top posts (if I have to answer). -- ____ Matthias Kretz (Germany)<>< http://Vir.homelinux.org/ [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED] pgpoYbDDYvjfl.pgp Description: PGP signature ___ release-team mailing list release-team@kde.org https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/release-team
Re: phonon/solid merge
On Tuesday 24 April 2007, Dirk Mueller wrote: > The options are to merge this branch before (perhaps over the weekend), or > to shift the alpha1 tag a few days (wednesday imho). > > I would suggest the latter, any comments? I'd also prefer to merge the branch on monday. If on the weekend, that's fine with me as well - but then I won't be available to do the "no fun" svn merging work. -- ____ Matthias Kretz (Germany)<>< http://Vir.homelinux.org/ [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ release-team mailing list release-team@kde.org https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/release-team
