Re: OpenAFS and Static Libraries
On Fri, 4 Mar 2011 10:57:35 -0500 Jack Neely wrote: > it looks like the proper thing to do is include these > static libraries in the -devel sub-package and have that > sub-package provide openafs-static. > > Secondly, many more experienced AFS administrators prefer > the old Transarc style paths over the FHS paths that my > packages use. I would like to create an openafs-transarc > sub-package that includes the symlinks that would enable > these non-standard paths. (Specifically, /usr/afs > and /usr/vice.) > > The first issue with the static libs really needs to > happen. The second issue is just pure annoyance but will > make these packages more usable to certain folks. I'd like > to do both. Are there any comments or reason why I should > not? > > Jack Neely Both sound good to me (yes, the FHS is a nice ideal, but a compat package with "DEPRECATED" somewhere in the description is an ok crutch). And as Ralf has so helpfully pointed out, not even RH follows the FHS 100%. -- Conrad Meyer
Re: Introduction
On Sunday 03 January 2010 02:46:38 pm John Arntz wrote: > --- On Sun, 1/3/10, Andrea Musuruane wrote: > > I know these, but AFAIK they only use Italian language: > > > > http://it.altervista.org/ > > http://xoom.virgilio.it/ > > I might be able to find an English equivalent for that. Since I just need > to host files, would any of those file sites I mentioned before do the > job? I know some of them place limits on how many files/MB's you download > within given period of time, so I don't want to make it difficult to fetch > the files. How about Google Sites or something like that? The sites you mention have super obnoxious ads and 'wait times' and download limits that make them really annoying for others to use. I think you could also use fedorapeople.org if you already have a fedora account. Best regards, -- Conrad Meyer
Re: kmod-nvidia didn't make it into F12 repos?
On Tuesday 17 November 2009 04:21:40 pm Chris Nolan wrote: > A few people (me included) are wondering what has happened to > kmod-nvidia in F12? Did it get missed somehow or is there a problem with > it? > > Thanks > Chris If you read the announcement email, they are in updates-testing because some sort of manual step is required. -- Conrad Meyer
Re: Repos for F12 should be ready
On Sunday 15 November 2009 09:58:34 am Thorsten Leemhuis wrote: > Hi! > > I created the final repos for F12, the release rpms for them and did the > first pushes. Everything seems to be sane at this point -- if not let me > know soon, as now it's still easy to fix things in the final repos. > > The buildsys and cvs are not yet fully adjusted/branched for F12. I did > a lot of preparation work for the builders(¹), but there iirc are some > things Xavier does in CVS to prepare for a new release that only he > knows about. > > CU > knurd > > (¹) I still don't want to do that sort of work, but I guess preparing > it myself was the fasted way to make sure things mostly went smooth for > everybody Hi, Can you post about what steps were involved in this process? -- Conrad Meyer
Re: How to move on with infrastructure?
On Wednesday 21 October 2009 01:13:00 pm Jochen Schmitt wrote: > Am 21.10.2009 21:22, schrieb Orcan Ogetbil: > > If the lack of documentation is one of the problems, can we arrange > > a time to make a workshop/lecture on IRC, so that people who have > > the knowledge could deliver it? I assume that there are various > > folks who could offer help, even at a minimal level. But it is not > > easy to figure out where to get a lead. > > It's sounds good, but keep in mind, that on IRC you have the issue of > time shift, because people are living in different time zones. > > For my point, I'm interested for a short explaination how to work out > a CVS request reported via bz. > > Best Regards: > > Jochen Schmitt A copy of irc logs could be posted to email for people who cannot make the meeting. -- Conrad Meyer
Re: prep error
On Wednesday 14 October 2009 10:18:40 am Julian Sikorski wrote: > P.S. > Could you please switch to non-HTML mail? At least (s)he sends a text copy as well as html. There are less polite MUAs :). -- Conrad Meyer
Re: Segfault in E-UAE
"/lib64/libresolv.so.2" (CRC mismatch). warning: the debug information found in "/usr/lib/debug/lib64/libresolv-2.10.1.so.debug" does not match "/lib64/libresolv.so.2" (CRC mismatch). [New Thread 0x7fffe6f25910 (LWP 9462)] [Thread 0x7fffe6f25910 (LWP 9462) exited] [New Thread 0x7fffe6f25910 (LWP 9463)] [Thread 0x7fffe6f25910 (LWP 9463) exited] Found x11pc raw keyboard mapping Using cooked keymap Program received signal SIGSEGV, Segmentation fault. [Switching to Thread 0x775a5910 (LWP 9461)] 0x0031064289b5 in g_type_is_a () from /lib64/libgobject-2.0.so.0 (gdb) bt #0 0x0031064289b5 in g_type_is_a () from /lib64/libgobject-2.0.so.0 #1 0x003108a5e9b4 in gtk_type_new () from /usr/lib64/libgtk-x11-2.0.so.0 #2 0x00474268 in gtk_button_box_get_type () #3 0x00474ef5 in gtk_button_box_get_type () #4 0x00310603801b in ?? () from /lib64/libglib-2.0.so.0 #5 0x00310603790e in g_main_context_dispatch () from /lib64/libglib-2.0.so.0 #6 0x00310603b0e8 in ?? () from /lib64/libglib-2.0.so.0 #7 0x00310603b535 in g_main_loop_run () from /lib64/libglib-2.0.so.0 #8 0x0031089422b7 in gtk_main () from /usr/lib64/libgtk-x11-2.0.so.0 #9 0x0046edf6 in gtk_button_box_get_type () #10 0x00366bc11525 in ?? () from /usr/lib64/libSDL-1.2.so.0 #11 0x00366bc573d9 in ?? () from /usr/lib64/libSDL-1.2.so.0 #12 0x00365680686a in start_thread () from /lib64/libpthread.so.0 #13 0x003655cde3bd in clone () from /lib64/libc.so.6 #14 0x in ?? () Regards, -- Conrad Meyer
Re: Experimental mplayer packages available: current code, VDPAU and VAAPI acceleration, multi-threading
On Sunday 13 September 2009 09:13:34 am Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski wrote:
> If we weren't so close to beta then I would accept a patched MPlayer
> package, hoping that the patch would go upstream before beta, but right
> now I consider it F13 material.
>
> > The multi-threading stuff is still fairly
> > experimental, though, I believe.
>
> Right. We can think about it for F13 soonest.
FWIW I have been using both the mplayer-accelerated and mplayer-mt packages
from Adam for the past several days on many videos without incident. They seem
to (both) work flawlessly on xvid and h264 video on my nvidia 8800GT. (I'm not
arguing they should necessarily be included in F12, but they certainly work
well for me. Before mplayer-{mt,accelerated}, I couldn't use mplayer to play
1080p h264 video on my Q6600 + 8800GT. Now I can.)
Regards,
--
Conrad Meyer
Re: Precedence for shadowing a monolithic Fedora package?
On Sunday 23 August 2009 10:22:10 am Michel Salim wrote: > The other concern is legality. I'm currently based in the US, so ... not > sure how much I can do this myself. As are many rpmfusion packagers ;). -- Conrad Meyer
Re: BRing qt3 on both fedora and EPEL
On Thursday 02 April 2009 02:19:48 pm David Timms wrote: > Hi, I got a few hints reqarding this on IRC: > > I'm trying to adjust my spec to BR qt 3, in a way that works on EPEL and > Fedora. mharris suggested this might work: > BuildRequires: qt-devel >= 3 > BuildRequires: qt-devel < 4, which -bs ok, actual build fails: > > error: Failed build dependencies: > qt-devel < 4 is needed by dvbcut-0.6.0-4.svn157.fc10.src > > On f10-i386: > $ rpm -q --whatprovides qt > qt3-3.3.8b-17.fc10.i386 > qt-4.4.3-15.fc10.i386 > $ rpm -q --whatprovides qt3 > qt3-3.3.8b-17.fc10.i386 > $ rpm -q --whatprovides qt3 > 3 > $ rpm -q --whatprovides qt3 >3 > $ rpm -q --whatprovides qt3 '>3' > qt3-3.3.8b-17.fc10.i386 > no package provides >3 > > Can rpm answer the (comparison operator) question for me ? > > Any other hints ? > > http://cvs.rpmfusion.org/viewvc/rpms/dvbcut/EL-5/dvbcut.spec?root=free&r1=1 >.3&r2=1.4 might help to show what I've tried. > > DaveT. You might try asking on #fedora-kde on freenode. -- Conrad Meyer
Re: First Package Submission
On Monday 16 March 2009 11:17:14 am d...@is1337.net wrote: > Hi, > >It is a Core2 Duo, which I thought was x86_64. Yum segfaults when > called with --install-root to the F10 i386 directory, so maybe not. > >I will eventually reassemble some 64-bit AMD machines, and I know > they are able to build for i386 at least. (I will also see if QEMU > has any luck on them for some other archs.) That will probably be a > project for the weekend, though. > > Thanks, >Dave It's x86_64 if you've installed the x86_64 version of Fedora. Try running: mock -r fedora-10-i386 path/to/srpm to build it. Regards, -- Conrad Meyer
Re: First Package Submission
On Sunday 15 March 2009 02:03:28 pm d...@is1337.net wrote:
>At the moment, I only have a 64-bit Intel system to test for
> building--which seems to crash when I try to emulate other
> architectures with QEMU. I would greatly appreciate if anyone with
> some spare time and a non-x86_64 architecture system can leave build
> feedback on the bug report.
x86_64 or ia64?
x86_64 can build i586 packages in mock directly -- so you can do that fairly
easily. QEMU emulation of ppc{,64} was broken last I heard.
Regards,
--
Conrad Meyer
Re: Where we are and where do we what to go?
On Monday 02 March 2009 03:56:45 pm Rahul Sundaram wrote: > Kevin Kofler wrote: > >> gnome vs. kde (we should do both) > > > > +1 > > The current Omega isn't of much use to KDE users. > > Then build a KDE variant. What is stopping you? > > Rahul Lack of interest. -- Conrad Meyer
Re: please test bsnes on ppc/ppc64
On Sunday 22 February 2009 04:50:48 am Julian Sikorski wrote: > Hi, > > I have just built a new bsnes for rawhide, which has the ExclusiveArch > removed. It is bound to be slower due to the fact that C is used instead > of assembly, but if you could check if the emulator works correctly I'd > be very happy to hear from you. > > Julian Seems to work ok, but my ibook is too slow to tell if the audio is working or not. Game and graphics seem fine. Regards, -- Conrad Meyer
Re: please test bsnes on ppc/ppc64
On Sunday 22 February 2009 04:50:48 am Julian Sikorski wrote: > Hi, > > I have just built a new bsnes for rawhide, which has the ExclusiveArch > removed. It is bound to be slower due to the fact that C is used instead > of assembly, but if you could check if the emulator works correctly I'd > be very happy to hear from you. > > Julian I'll try this on my ppc, thanks. -- Conrad Meyer
Re: Review-Queue-Report for RPM Fusion
On Sunday 11 January 2009 08:21:36 am Thorsten Leemhuis wrote: > Hi! > > I thought a small Review-Queue-Report now and then might help to get > some attention to the packages in the review queue and might help to > find reviews that got stalled. Hopefully we this way can keep the review > queue short and clean > > = Packages without reviewer (sorted by last change) = > > > ID Opened Changed Summary > > 167 2008-11-17 2008-11-22 Review request: > > anyremote-J2ME-client - J2ME > > client for anyRemote 1952008-11-27 2008-11-27 Review request: > > perl-Crypt-IDEA - Perl interface to IDEA block cipher 892008-10-23 > > 2008-12-05 Review request: avbin - Cross-platform media decoding > > library 48 2008-09-23 2008-12-28 Review Request: freej - a vision > > mixer for video DJs on Linux 2832008-12-29 2008-12-29 revel - > > Really > > easy video encoding library 284 2008-12-30 2009-01-02 Review > > request: > > picard-freeworld - Acoustic fingerprinting for Picard tagger 302 > > 2009-01-05 Mon 17:26 Review request: shorten - Fast, low > > complexity > > audio compressor 3032009-01-05 Tue 17:26 Review request: > > Mupen64Plus > > - A Nintendo64 Emulator 208 2008-12-01 Tue 23:21 pyglet > > - A > > cross-platform windowing and multimedia library for Python 25 > > 2008-02-24 > > Wed 00:42 truecrypt - Free Open-Source Disk Encryption Software > > 171 > > 2008-11-19 Wed 19:38 Review Request: > > rpmfusion-config-display - tool > > to manage proprietary graphic drivers 299 2009-01-04 Fri 14:49 > > Review > > request: me-tv - Digital television viewer for GNOME 310Fri 08:15 > > 11:50:34scid - A chess database application > > Is one of you packages in above list and without a reviewer for a while > now? Then look at the other packages in the list, find one that you are > interested in and try to exchange reviews. That will even help if you or > the other packager are not-yet sponsored for Fedora or RPM Fusion, as it > shows your willingness to contribute and shows that you are familar with > the packaging guidelines! > > = Packages under review (sorted by last change) = > > > ID Opened Changed Summary > > 151 2008-11-14 2008-12-20 Review Request: systemc - > > Design and > > verification language for Hardware 281 2008-12-28 2008-12-28 > > Review > > Request: ogmrip - DVD ripping and encoding graphical user interface 49 > > 2008-09-27 2008-12-30 wxsvg-freeworld - C++ library to create, > > manipulate and render SVG files 20 2008-01-29 2009-01-03 Review > > request: blcr-kmod - kmod for Berkeley Lab Checkpoint/Restart for Linux > > 261 2008-12-18 2009-01-04 Review Request: > > buildsys-mockcfg-rpmfusion_free - Mock config files for the RPM Fusion > > Free Repository 262 2008-12-18 2009-01-04 Review Request: > > buildsys-mockcfg-rpmfusion_nonfree - Mock config files for the RPM Fusion > > NonFree Repository 208 2008-12-01 Tue 23:21 pyglet - A > > cross-platform > > windowing and multimedia library for Python 32 2008-07-23 Thu > > 21:11 > > Review request: vdr-dvd - DVD playback plugin for VDR 308 Thu > > 21:39 > > Thu 21:39 Review request: ultrastardx - Karaoke game inspired by a > > popular commercial karaoke game 309 Thu 22:29 Fri 13:48 > > Review > > request: openttd - An open source reimplementation of the game "Transport > > Tycoon Deluxe" 269 2008-12-22 Sat 19:02 Review Request: > > snowballz - a > > fun RTS game featuring snowball fights with penguins 2892009-01-01 > > 14:45:52Review request: gstreamer-pitfdll - GStreamer plugin > > for using > > MS Windows binary codecs > > = EOF = > > HTH > > Cu > knurd pyglet is listed in both lists? -- Conrad Meyer
Re: EOL RPM Fusion for Fedora 8 now?
On Thursday 08 January 2009 10:30:48 am Thorsten Leemhuis wrote: > Hi! > > We never discussed this: Will we EOL RPM Fusion for Fedora foo if in > parallel with the EOL of Fedora foo? +1. > I'd say we definitely should do that, which would mean that we EOL RPM > Fusion for F8 now. Agreed. > > More info: Livna in the past EOLed support for a Fedora release when > that went EOL -- that worked fine afaics. Does anybody know how dribble > and freshrpms handled it? > > CU > knurd -- Conrad Meyer
Re: IMDbPy?
On Friday 26 December 2008 12:36:50 am Chris Petersen wrote: > Conrad Meyer wrote: > > On Monday 22 December 2008 07:28:17 pm Chris Petersen wrote: > >> http://imdbpy.sourceforge.net/ > >> > >> The "MythVideo" part of MythTV will soon require this library for > >> certain functionality. I suspect that because it violates the IMDB > >> website terms (by being a scraper), it wouldn't get into Fedora proper, > >> but I'm wondering if it would be allowed here. > >> > >> I'll have an updated spec shortly, but wanted to post this message > >> before submitting a review request, etc. > >> > >> -Chris > > > > IMDbPy is in Fedora. > > Ah, did a little more digging. Looks like it's listed as python-imdb in > fedora CVS, but has no "provides" for IMDbPY for those of us who are > actually searching for the upstream package name. On top of that, it's > also not showing up in the yum repositories my machines are hitting, so > doesn't turn up in my search results. I'll poke in mainline fedora > channels to find out what's up, thanks. > > -Chris It hit CVS within the past 2 days or so. Give the packager some time :). -- Conrad Meyer
Re: IMDbPy?
On Monday 22 December 2008 07:28:17 pm Chris Petersen wrote: > http://imdbpy.sourceforge.net/ > > The "MythVideo" part of MythTV will soon require this library for > certain functionality. I suspect that because it violates the IMDB > website terms (by being a scraper), it wouldn't get into Fedora proper, > but I'm wondering if it would be allowed here. > > I'll have an updated spec shortly, but wanted to post this message > before submitting a review request, etc. > > -Chris IMDbPy is in Fedora. -- Conrad Meyer
Re: apt and smart support for RPM Fusion and Livna
On Wednesday 17 December 2008 01:43:40 am Thorsten Leemhuis wrote: > Hi! > > Just FYI, seems some people would like to have apt and smart support for > RPM Fusion and Livna; see this mail (and the replies to it): > https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-list/2008-December/msg02807.html > > Smart support for RPM Fusion is in the works > https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=13 > > Support for apt isn't afaics. Does anybody want to work on this? > > BTW, I guess the livna developers will also be gladly accept patches > that enhance the current livna-release rpm from http://rpm.livna.org/ to > support support apt or smart (SRPM can be found here: > http://rpm.livna.org/repo/8/SRPMS/livna-release-1-1.src.rpm); the old > release rpms did support smart and apt iirc, but I they ignored the > directory ownership problem. > > Cu > knurd apt-rpm doesn't work in current Fedora anyways. -- Conrad Meyer
Re: fglrx for F10?
On Tuesday 16 December 2008 01:15:54 am Richard Körber wrote: > Hi! > > I see that there is still no fglrx driver available for F10. What's the > current status? > > Thanks! > > Regards Current status is ATi still sucks. Nothing new. -- Conrad Meyer
Re: libdvdcss,again
On Saturday 13 December 2008 04:45:58 am Peter Lemenkov wrote: > Hello All! > > 2008/12/13, Thorsten Leemhuis : > > > > The question is - who decided it. I wish to know whether rpmfusion is > > > > a community-driven project or not. > > > > > > Please read these: > > > http://rpmfusion.org/SteeringCommittee > > > > http://lists.fedoraunity.org/pipermail/repo-merge-discussion/2007-April/0 > >00096.html > > Understood - rpmfusion is not a community-project (important decisions > were made w/o asking community directly). > > So, finally, what benefits rpmfusion provides over Livna? I see only > disadvantages (cannot include software, which someone claims illegal > in some particular country). Well, rpmfusion will continue to do updates and new packages, while livna no longer does (I don't think even new installs can get any package from livna). That's an advantage for RPM fusion. Regards, -- Conrad Meyer
Re: libdvdcss,again
On Saturday 13 December 2008 12:41:28 am Peter Lemenkov wrote: > Hello All. > > 2008/12/13, Gianluca Sforna : > > > The question is, who agreed not to ship libdvdcss (completely legal in > > > wast majority of countries) and when? > > > > I'm not here since a long time, but I already saw few threads about > > this, so I guess archives could answer your Q. > > I searched a bit, but cannot fuiind any traces of *agreement*. > Actually, there is the only relevant thread I found: > > http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.linux.redhat.fedora.rpmfusion.devel/2264 The current state of things is that Livna still lives (and ships *only* libdvdcss), and that way RPMFusion can avoid shipping libdvdcss and get advertised in countries where libdvdcss is illegal. Regards, -- Conrad Meyer
Re: Introduction
On Friday 21 November 2008 01:45:51 pm Orion Poplawski wrote: > Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski wrote: > > On Friday, 21 November 2008 at 17:46, Orion Poplawski wrote: > >> Hello. I'm a long time Fedora contributor and sponsor, and long time > >> livna user. I'm interested in seeing more rpmfusion packages available > >> on EL, and looking to help co-maintain those packages. > > > > Welcome aboard. Are there any specific packages you'd like to see on EL? > > At the moment - transcode and unrar. transcode is going to depend on a > lot... I don't use EL so I would be glad to let you take EL-* maintainership of unrar. Regards, -- Conrad Meyer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Re: what's the purpose of rpmfusion
On Thursday 20 November 2008 03:29:10 pm Farkas Levente wrote: > hi, > after the libdvdcss discussion it'd be useful to define the purpose of > rpmfusion. first of all imho it's a good thing to merge repos (even > further rpmfusion and rpmforge would be nice). but currently it's not > clear what kind of packages get into rpmfusion. > - only those packages which can't be added to fedora? ie packages which > is acceptable for fedora still can be in rpmfusion? > - than which packages? > - kmods (ok it's clear) > - what else? > eg: why these packages here rather then fedora: > open-vm-tools, xvidcore, x264, gstreamer-plugins-bad, ffmpeg etc > it'd be a useful faq or even documented on the start page. Hi, this is made quite clear on the main page: "The goal is to simplify end-user experience by grouping as much add-on software as possible in a single location." Immediately thereafter it refers to http://rpmfusion.org/FoundingPrinciples, which states very clearly what is acceptable for RPM Fusion. None of open-vm-tools, xvidcore, x264, gstreamer-plugins-bad, ffmpeg etc can be in Fedora proper because of patent concerns. Please read (have you heard of google?!) before asking stupid questions on mailing lists (this goes for fedora-devel-list as well). Regards, -- Conrad Meyer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Re: Hopefully a new member of the team
On Wednesday 19 November 2008 10:39:40 am Rex Dieter wrote: > Dejan Lekic wrote: > > Rex, I think you do not understand what I am saying ... I am willing to > > develop/maintain packages inside ONE repository (RPMForge). I am not > > saying to dump them here and leave. I am trying to explain why I cannot > > do this in two separate projects (Fedora main repo and RPMFusion repo) - > > I have no time for both! > > I have never said I am not going to maintain packages here (if they are > > accepted, naturally) > > OK, my interpretations then, my apologies. > > But, the suggestions here have also never said to maintain anything in 2 > repos. Fedora really is the ideal first place for all this... unless > you had something else in mind (did I forget?) that is clearly > rpmfusion-only territory. > > -- Rex Yes, if you (Dejan Lekic) could only submit packages to one repository, we'd prefer it to be Fedora, not RPM Fusion. -- Conrad Meyer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Re: Hopefully a new member of the team
On Wednesday 19 November 2008 10:32:48 am Dejan Lekic wrote: > On Wed, Nov 19, 2008 at 6:22 PM, Rex Dieter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Dejan Lekic wrote: > > > > OK, I am going to put packages and SPEC files somewhere on the web, and > > > >> add a new GIT repository (just SPEC files) and give you information > >> where those are and how to access them. After someone reviews them (if > >> actually RPMFusion guys want to do it) and check whether they can go > >> into RPMFusion repository or not, I expect a feedback together with a > >> simple, > >> straightforward answer - YES/NO - whether my packages will go into > >> RPMFusion or not. > > > > Seems to me that your perceptions may be off (or simply interpretation of > > your statements), but... to clarify: Neither fedora or rpmfusion is a > > dumping ground for packages. > > > > Without someone to do the work and drive/maintain these (apparently != > > you), the answer should be obvious: NO. > > > > Unless, of course, someone else steps forward, to continue the work you > > started. > > > > -- Rex > > Rex, I think you do not understand what I am saying ... I am willing to > develop/maintain packages inside ONE repository (RPMForge). I am not saying > to dump them here and leave. I am trying to explain why I cannot do this in > two separate projects (Fedora main repo and RPMFusion repo) - I have no > time for both! > I have never said I am not going to maintain packages here (if they are > accepted, naturally) Sorry, the whole existence of RPM Fusion revolves around it's relation to Fedora. We will reject packages that should be in Fedora. However, if you're willing to answer questions when problems arise, maybe someone would be willing to be a stand-in maintainer in Fedora once you've created packages? I don't see how having to have two bugzilla accounts is any more work than one, but if you package stuff that is useful and not in Fedora I don't see why someone else can't submit it for review and maintain it. Regards, -- Conrad Meyer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Re: suns' java leagal issues
On Monday 17 November 2008 05:53:21 pm Orcan Ogetbil wrote:
> --- On Mon, 11/17/08, Conrad Meyer wrote:
> > On Monday 17 November 2008 05:32:07 pm Orcan Ogetbil wrote:
> > > Here are the license texts:
> > > JRE:
> > > http://java.sun.com/javase/6/jre-6u10-license.txt
> > > JDK:
> > > http://java.sun.com/javase/6/jdk-6u10-license.txt
> > >
> > > Part B's are about redistribution. They allow
> > > redistribution provided that
> > > there are no modifications.
> >
> > I'd imagine putting it into an RPM counts as
> > modification.
>
> Let's go through the requirements one-by-one ("Software" refers to Sun's
> Java):
>
> --
> (i) you distribute the Software complete and unmodified and
> only bundled as part of, and for the sole purpose of running,
> your Programs,
>
>
> The Software won't be modified. We are just going to put a wrap around
> their tarball.
For the nosrc rpm, yes. The target rpms will be extracted and the files
shifted around.
> --
> (ii) the Programs add significant and primary functionality to
> the Software,
>
>
> This is definitely satisfied. Out of question.
>
> --
> (iii)
> you do not distribute additional software intended to
> replace any component(s) of the Software,
>
>
> We are not going to distribute additional software to replace
> Sun's Java.
We already ship java-1.6.0-openjdk and gcj.
> --
> (iv) you do not remove or alter any proprietary legends or
> notices contained in the Software,
>
>
> Quite doable.
>
> --
> (v) you only distribute the Software
> subject to a license agreement that protects Sun's interests
> consistent with the terms contained in this Agreement, and
>
>
>
> Actually, we'll put the very same license text in the RPM
>
> --
> (vi) you agree to defend and indemnify Sun and its licensors
> from and against any damages, costs, liabilities, settlement
> amounts and/or expenses (including attorneys' fees) incurred
> in connection with any claim, lawsuit or action by any third
> party that arises or results from the use or distribution of
> any and all Programs and/or Software.
>
>
> We won't really "damage" anything that is in their tarball.
> As I said, we'll just put a "gift wrap" around it :)
>
> -oget
I'm not sure we can do this last thing. And IANAL (and I don't think you are
either) so our analysis of this is useless anyways.
Regards,
--
Conrad Meyer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Re: suns' java leagal issues
On Monday 17 November 2008 05:32:07 pm Orcan Ogetbil wrote: > Here are the license texts: > JRE: > http://java.sun.com/javase/6/jre-6u10-license.txt > JDK: > http://java.sun.com/javase/6/jdk-6u10-license.txt > > Part B's are about redistribution. They allow redistribution provided that > there are no modifications. > > I also found no trace of "commercial use" in the license texts. But I'll > need to read them thoroughly to check for other possible issues. > > -oget I'd imagine putting it into an RPM counts as modification. -- Conrad Meyer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Re: suns' java leagal issues
On Monday 17 November 2008 05:24:26 pm Orcan Ogetbil wrote: > --- On Mon, 11/17/08, Conrad Meyer wrote: > > Just a guess -- I'd guess there's a either a > > "no redistribution" > > or "non-commercial only" redistribution clause, > > either of which is a no go. > > "non-commercial only" is a restriction on the "freedom" of the software. I > don't think this causes a problem with putting it into the "non-free" repo. > We already have "non-commercial only" software in the "non-free" repo. > > Well, we have to read Sun's user agreement to see if it is OK to > redistribute it. If it allows redistribution I vote for distributing the > RPM in rpmfusion. > > Btw, I recently checked adobe's flash agreement. That one definitely > forbids redistribution. > > -oget At least they provide a yum repo nowadays. And 64-bit support is on the way too. -- Conrad Meyer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Re: suns' java leagal issues
On Monday 17 November 2008 04:12:07 pm مؤيد السعدي wrote: > >>>> why we don't pack suns' java like them ? is there any legal issue ? > > > > and > > > >>> We build from source. this includes the jdk. > > hello! I'm talking about nonfree branch of rpmfusion > that's why I'm not posting to fedora-devel > rpmfusion contains re-distributable binary only stuff like nvidia > > and I hate java and I don't use it (unless when I'm forced to do that) so I > don't know what bugs does open java have and what it can't run > I have tried Sarf (http://sarf.sourceforge.net/) it's an opensource > morphology engine written on Java and it worked but I can't type Arabic in > text entry boxes and when I past them from other application it did not get > them > > I'm not reporting this bug, my point is that some people needs java-sun not > java-openjdk > > and we should give people the freedom to choose > > can any one tell me why ? which term of the EULA ... ? that we can't > redistribute a well-packaged rpm for sun's java Just a guess -- I'd guess there's a either a "no redistribution" or "non-commercial only" redistribution clause, either of which is a no go. -- Conrad Meyer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Re: suns' java leagal issues
On Monday 17 November 2008 02:56:11 pm David Timms wrote: > Conrad Meyer wrote: > > On Monday 17 November 2008 01:24:13 pm David Timms wrote: > >> مؤيد السعدي wrote: > >>> any of the two mean that I can't use package manager to get it > >>> I can't install netbeans ..etc. from package manager > >> > >> What isn't working with open jdk ? > >> Works for me: yum install java-1.6.0-openjdk > >> What isn't working for you ? > >>(Have you posted a bugzilla.redhat.com bugs ?) > >> > >> ... > >> > >>> why we don't pack suns' java like them ? is there any legal issue ? and > >> > >> We build from source. this includes the jdk. > > > > Evidently doesn't include kmod-nvidia... > > agreed. though we do compile the kernel module interface from source... > > DaveT. Maybe we could get Mark Shuttleworth to host a RPM repository for libdvdcss, java-1.6.0-sun, and kmod-nvidia, since he doesn't seem to care about legal issues plaguing much of the world :). -- Conrad Meyer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Re: suns' java leagal issues
On Monday 17 November 2008 01:24:13 pm David Timms wrote: > مؤيد السعدي wrote: > > any of the two mean that I can't use package manager to get it > > I can't install netbeans ..etc. from package manager > > What isn't working with open jdk ? > Works for me: yum install java-1.6.0-openjdk > What isn't working for you ? >(Have you posted a bugzilla.redhat.com bugs ?) > > ... > > > why we don't pack suns' java like them ? is there any legal issue ? and > > We build from source. this includes the jdk. Evidently doesn't include kmod-nvidia... > > what are the counter legal procedures done by ubuntu people in order to > > provide that package and redistribute it > > Not care... > > For a complete history, you could summarize the java discussions in > fedora-devel. Otherwise, are the following helpful ? : > - https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Java > - https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/JavaFAQ > > DaveT. -- Conrad Meyer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Re: VLC & fc8
On Wednesday 05 November 2008 01:16:21 am KH KH wrote: > 2008/11/5 Conrad Meyer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > Sure, enable F-9 repositories temporarily just to install vlc (once F-9 > > has 0.9.5). > > That's really bad idea, that's not certains to have the same ABI for > all the dependencies. > You have probably broke your Fedora installation, doing things like this. Huh? The ABIs should be just fine once all the F-9 library dependencies are pulled in (though really he should just upgrade to F-9). Regards, -- Conrad Meyer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Re: VLC & fc8
On Wednesday 05 November 2008 12:42:17 am rontti wrote: > 2008/11/5 Conrad Meyer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > On Wednesday 05 November 2008 12:15:49 am rontti wrote: > > > Hello, > > > > > > I've been searching recent VLC 0.9.5 for fc8. I use acer aspire one > > > netbook, which is based on fc8. Acer has tailored fc8 to suit to a > > > small netbook, so it can not easily be upgraded to fc9. Acer has been > > > quite successfull in new netbook market so I assume this problem > > > concerns quite many people. > > > > > > Is there any chance to get VLC 0.9.5 for fc8 (even an unofficial one)? > > > > > > Regs Tarmo > > > > Sure, enable F-9 repositories temporarily just to install vlc (once F-9 > > has 0.9.5). > > > > -- > > Conrad Meyer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Thanks for the reply. I asked recent version from fedora forums and one > nice guy (seve) provided a 0.9.4 fc9 rpm. When I tried to install that to > fc8 I got a bunch of dependency errors. After that Leigh compiled seve's > sources against fc8 and provided those to me and I got vlc installed. > Based on this I assume fc9 vlc rpm's might not install to fc8? > > Regs Tarmo As I said if you enable F-9 in yum it will pull in the appropriate dependencies. -- Conrad Meyer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Re: VLC & fc8
On Wednesday 05 November 2008 12:15:49 am rontti wrote: > Hello, > > I've been searching recent VLC 0.9.5 for fc8. I use acer aspire one > netbook, which is based on fc8. Acer has tailored fc8 to suit to a small > netbook, so it can not easily be upgraded to fc9. Acer has been quite > successfull in new netbook market so I assume this problem concerns quite > many people. > > Is there any chance to get VLC 0.9.5 for fc8 (even an unofficial one)? > > Regs Tarmo Sure, enable F-9 repositories temporarily just to install vlc (once F-9 has 0.9.5). -- Conrad Meyer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Re: totem/gstreamer/ffmpeg issues
On Tuesday 04 November 2008 06:48:44 pm Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski wrote: > On Wednesday, 05 November 2008 at 03:24, Ralf Corsepius wrote: > > On Tue, 2008-11-04 at 21:04 +0100, Hans de Goede wrote: > > > Ralf Corsepius wrote: > > > > Hi, > > > > > > > > I don't know what has changed (and whose fault it might be), but > > > > today's rpmfusion/rawhide update broke totem video play back badly > > > > for me on an F10/rawhide + rpmfusion-free + rpmfusion-nonfree system. > > > > > > > > E.g. I am observing > > > > * selinux alerts related toten-video-thumbnailer and totem itself > > > > having selinux problems with libavformat > > > > * playback of many (all?) *.flv's and *.mp4's has stopped working (So > > > > far, I haven't found any file for which it works). > > > > ... > > > > > > > > All I can say: rpmfusion things used to work when I tried last > > > > weekend, and now don't do so anymore. > > > > > > This is most likely caused by the new ffmpeg which has cpu specific > > > optimalizations turned on for the first time, try manualy removing the > > > version under /usr/lib[64]/sse2, that should make you fallback to the > > > old no cpu specific optimalizations version. > > > > The initial sealert is on sse2/libavcodec.so.51.71.0. > > > > Manually removing /usr/lib/sse2/libavcodec.so.51.71.0 triggers a similar > > sealert on /usr/lib/sse2/libavutil.so.49.10.0 > > > > Removing both > > /usr/lib/sse2/libavcodec.so.51.71.0 > > /usr/lib/sse2/libavutil.so.49.10.0 > > brings totem back into business. > > And costs up to 70% of performance. I'm not sure Intel Atom cpus *have* SSE2. -- Conrad Meyer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Re: Next steps to get RPM Fusion running (V2)
On Monday 03 November 2008 04:36:57 am Adrian Reber wrote: > On Mon, Nov 03, 2008 at 01:28:25PM +0100, Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski wrote: > > > >http://mirrors.rpmfusion.org/mirrorlist?repo=free-fedora-9&arch=i386 > > > > > > Thias, thx for taking care of it. Some issues: > > > > Another issue. The mirrorlist contains > > http://sunsite.icm.edu.pl/pub/Linux/distributions/rpmfusion/ > > This works from the machine which is running mirrormanager. > > > which doesn't work (403 error), when it should contain > > http://ftp.icm.edu.pl/pub/Linux/distributions/rpmfusion/ > > which works. Perhaps the list was made before I fixed up > > the address on the wiki (which is showing the correct URL). > > Only working and URLs which are up to date should appear in that list, > and the sunsite link works from here. I can change it in mirrormanager > if you want... > > Adrian Seems to work fine here as well. -- Conrad Meyer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Re: RPM Fusion (Fedora - free) Package Build Report 2008-10-28
On Tuesday 28 October 2008 10:22:18 am [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > === >= Packages built and released for RPM Fusion (Fedora - free) 9: 157 WOW! Mass rebuild? -- Conrad Meyer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Re: New contributor - hello, and looking for sponsorship!
On Saturday 25 October 2008 06:55:34 am Thorsten Leemhuis wrote: > On 25.10.2008 15:21, Chris Nolan wrote: > > Looking at packaging the RPM: the main thing that sticks out is that > > there are two different source tarballs for 32 and 64 bit systems. > > Joy and fun with proprietary vendor drivers :-/ > > > The > > only difference between the two tarballs is the hybrid binary driver > > itself - the rest of the source is the same. What would be the > > recommended way to proceed with this type of scenario? > > Good question. I'm unsure myself. > > > I was wondering whether to include both binary files (they would need > > renaming to distinguish which is which) within a new single tarball and > > then use a patch for the Makefile to ensure it uses the correct binary > > driver. > > Things like that makes it really hard for others to modify or update the > package later -- every time I run into hacks like this while updating a > package I'd like to cry. Hence I'd say: lat way lie dragons, don't go > into that direction. > > > This seems a bit "hacky" so I wondered if anyone could think of > > a more elegant solution? > > I'd download both tarballs and give them a x86-32 and x86-64 suffix. > Then I'd include them as Source0 and Source1; in the spec use some > ifarch trickery around the setup macro to extract the right one. Also > not really nice (and it makes the SRPM a bit bigger), but it's a lot > more clean afaics. > > But there are likely a few other more clean ways to solve the problem; > maybe someone else on this list comes up with a better idea? > > CU > knurd This idea seems the best route to go to me (the "Fedora way" is to go with pristine source tarballs and patches / spec file changes to make it work, not to "fix" the tarball). It's also much less painful to do updates with. Regards, -- Conrad Meyer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Re: ppc64 build failure - asm code - bswap
Quoth David Timms:
> Hi, I think this was touched on a month ago, but not sure of resolution:
> =
>
http://buildsys.rpmfusion.org/logs/fedora-development-rpmfusion_free/936-gcube-0.4-4.fc10/ppc64/
> build.log:
> ...
> isopack.c:118: warning: ignoring return value of 'fread', declared with
> attribute warn_unused_result
> isopack.c:145: warning: ignoring return value of 'fread', declared with
> attribute warn_unused_result
> gcc -g -Wall -I/usr/include -I/usr/local/include -DASM_X86
> -DENABLE_SOUND -DDEFAULT_COLOR_MODE=1 -O2 -g -pipe -Wall
> -Wp,-D_FORTIFY_SOURCE=2 -fexceptions -fstack-protector
> --param=ssp-buffer-size=4 -m64 -mminimal-toc -fno-strict-aliasing-c
> -o thpview.o thpview.c
> gcc -g -Wall -I/usr/include -I/usr/local/include -DASM_X86
> -DENABLE_SOUND -DDEFAULT_COLOR_MODE=1 -O2 -g -pipe -Wall
> -Wp,-D_FORTIFY_SOURCE=2 -fexceptions -fstack-protector
> --param=ssp-buffer-size=4 -m64 -mminimal-toc -fno-strict-aliasing-c
> -o jpeg_tools.o jpeg_tools.c
> thpview.c: In function 'thp_write_jpeg_frame':
> thpview.c:137: warning: ignoring return value of 'fwrite', declared with
> attribute warn_unused_result
> thpview.c: In function 'thp_write_audio_frame':
> thpview.c:158: warning: ignoring return value of 'fwrite', declared with
> attribute warn_unused_result
> thpview.c: In function 'thp_extract_data':
> thpview.c:399: warning: format '%.8x' expects type 'unsigned int', but
> argument 2 has type 'long int'
> thpview.c: In function 'main':
> thpview.c:517: warning: pointer targets in passing argument 1 of
> 'thp_play_movie' differ in signedness
> thpview.c:510: warning: ignoring return value of 'fread', declared with
> attribute warn_unused_result
> gcc -g -c -o ppc_disasm.o ppc_disasm.c
> {standard input}: Assembler messages:
> {standard input}:590: Error: Unrecognized opcode: `bswap'
> {standard input}:687: Error: Unrecognized opcode: `bswap'
> {standard input}:721: Error: Unrecognized opcode: `bswap'
> {standard input}:1092: Error: Unrecognized opcode: `bswap'
> {standard input}:1146: Error: Unrecognized opcode: `bswap'
> {standard input}:1186: Error: Unrecognized opcode: `bswap'
> {standard input}:1215: Error: Unrecognized opcode: `bswap'
> make: *** [isopack.o] Error 1
> make: *** Waiting for unfinished jobs
> error: Bad exit status from /var/tmp/rpm-tmp.rGuH2u (%build)
> =
> So it seems that bswap might not suit ppc64 hardware. If that is the
> case then:
> # ppc64 build does not seem to support asm opcode bswap
> ExcludeArch: ppc64
> would seem appropriate an appropriate addition to the .spec. Does that
> make sense ?
>
> Note that it did build OK on i386|x86_64|ppc. I would have imagined that
> ppc64 opcodes would be a superset of ppc, so there might be something
> else going on ?
>
> DaveT.
bswap is used for endian conversion (IIRC). Since i386 and x86_64 are little
endian the code is probably for reading big endian data on i386/x86_64. PPC
is big endian to begin with so maybe you can add a patch to #ifdef on an
intel architecture around the inline asm? If it's used for something other
than endian conversion ppc probably has a similar instruction, but it'd be
best to rewrite it in C.
Regards,
--
Conrad Meyer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Re: cvs-import.sh permissions problem
Quoth Karel Volný: > > hi, > > when trying to import a package into RPM Fusion, I am getting the > following error: > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] common]$ ./cvs-import.sh -b F-9 > qmmp-plugins-freeworld-0.2.0-1.fc9.src.rpm > Checking out module: 'qmmp-plugins-freeworld' > Unpacking source package: > qmmp-plugins-freeworld-0.2.0-1.fc9.src.rpm... > L qmmp-0.2.0.tar.bz2 > A qmmp-filter-provides.sh > A qmmp-plugins-freeworld.spec > > Checking : qmmp-0.2.0.tar.bz2 on > https://cvs.rpmfusion.org/repo/pkgs/upload.cgi... > This file (3dd56fc0c9dd632572465f9eab3e4c80 qmmp-0.2.0.tar.bz2) > is already uploaded > > Source upload succeeded. Don't forget to commit the new ./sources > file > M sources > M .cvsignore > === > ? F-9/import.log > Index: F-9/.cvsignore > === > RCS file: /cvs/free/rpms/qmmp-plugins-freeworld/F-9/.cvsignore,v > retrieving revision 1.1 > diff -u -r1.1 .cvsignore > --- F-9/.cvsignore 22 Jul 2008 16:54:28 - 1.1 > +++ F-9/.cvsignore 31 Jul 2008 11:38:27 - > @@ -0,0 +1 @@ > +qmmp-0.2.0.tar.bz2 > cvs diff: F-9/qmmp-filter-provides.sh is a new entry, no > comparison available > cvs diff: F-9/qmmp-plugins-freeworld.spec is a new entry, no > comparison available > Index: F-9/sources > === > RCS file: /cvs/free/rpms/qmmp-plugins-freeworld/F-9/sources,v > retrieving revision 1.1 > diff -u -r1.1 sources > --- F-9/sources 22 Jul 2008 16:54:28 - 1.1 > +++ F-9/sources 31 Jul 2008 11:38:27 - > @@ -0,0 +1 @@ > +3dd56fc0c9dd632572465f9eab3e4c80 qmmp-0.2.0.tar.bz2 > === > Please check the above cvs diff. > If you want to make any changes before committing, please press > Ctrl-C. > Otherwise press Enter to proceed to commit. > > ? F-9/import.log > cvs commit... > ? F-9/import.log > Access denied: kvolny is not in ACL for > rpms/qmmp-plugins-freeworld/F-9 > cvs commit: Pre-commit check failed > cvs [commit aborted]: correct above errors first! > cvs commit: saving log message in /tmp/cvsEPCWDW > > > > it looks to me that the path element "rpms" is somehow > superfluous, as I can normally check > out "/cvs/free/qmmp-plugins-freeworld/..."? > > K. It's as simple as ' Access denied: kvolny is not in ACL for rpms/qmmp-plugins-freeworld/F-9'. Someone needs to add you to the ACL. -- Conrad Meyer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
Re: PLEASE read: Preparations and proposed procedure for importing livna packages to RPM Fusion
Quoth Thorsten Leemhuis: > On 21.07.2008 08:38, Hans de Goede wrote: > > Thorsten Leemhuis wrote: > >> * Are these still needed/wanted? > >> Fedora|unrar|Utility for extracting, testing and viewing RAR archives| > > We definitely want to keep unrar around, just yesterday I needed it to be able > > to read a pdf manual of a motherboard (offtopic, wtf a .pdf in a rar for public > > docs, are they sick??). I can take this if no-one else will. > > Conrad Meyer volunteered as well. Do you two want to handle it together? I emailed Hans off-list and we've decided that I'll take maintainership and Hans will co-maintain. Regards, -- Conrad Meyer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
