Re: peek package

2020-01-08 Thread Mattia Verga via devel
Il 08/01/20 08:09, Artem Tim ha scritto: > vokoscreenNG packaged now. Nice to have such app available in official repos. > > F31: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-a489a2436a > F30: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-aa27dbce21 >

Re: peek package

2020-01-07 Thread Benson Muite
Awesome! On 1/8/20 10:09 AM, Artem Tim wrote: vokoscreenNG packaged now. Nice to have such app available in official repos. F31: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-a489a2436a F30: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-aa27dbce21

Re: peek package

2020-01-07 Thread Artem Tim
vokoscreenNG packaged now. Nice to have such app available in official repos. F31: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-a489a2436a F30: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-aa27dbce21 ___ devel mailing list --

Re: peek package

2020-01-04 Thread Michael Schwendt
On Sat, 4 Jan 2020 08:36:07 +0100, Vitaly Zaitsev via devel wrote: > > Which is something you can only fix with an RPM Fusion package, > > if you "control" (= build) all depending packages. > > RPM Fusion will need to copy and rebuild all such packages and this is a > huge headache for

Re: peek package

2020-01-03 Thread Vitaly Zaitsev via devel
On 03.01.2020 20:01, Michael Schwendt wrote: > Which is something you can only fix with an RPM Fusion package, > if you "control" (= build) all depending packages. RPM Fusion will need to copy and rebuild all such packages and this is a huge headache for maintainers and currently forbidden by

Re: peek package

2020-01-03 Thread Michael Schwendt
On Fri, 3 Jan 2020 16:30:54 +0100, Vitaly Zaitsev via devel wrote: > On 03.01.2020 11:14, Michael Schwendt wrote: > > What sort of "huge headache" would that be? > > 1. Most of ffmpeg-capable applications use compile-time checks for > available codecs presence. Which is something you can only

Re: peek package

2020-01-03 Thread Vitaly Zaitsev via devel
On 03.01.2020 11:14, Michael Schwendt wrote: > What sort of "huge headache" would that be? 1. Most of ffmpeg-capable applications use compile-time checks for available codecs presence. 2. Sync errors between repositories like chromium and chromium-libs-media-freeworld. > Third party repos like

Re: peek package

2020-01-03 Thread Artem Tim
I did draft package of vokoscreenNG if someone interesting RR: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1787578 Works without ffmpeg. Thanks for tip @Neal. ___ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to

Re: peek package

2020-01-03 Thread Neal Gompa
On Fri, Jan 3, 2020 at 5:00 AM František Šumšal wrote: > > On 1/3/20 10:49 AM, Leigh Scott wrote: > >> But what about users which actually have ffmpeg installed? Do you think > >> they don't deserve having peek in menu? > >> > >> On Fri, Jan 3, 2020, 04:02 John M. Harris Jr >> wrote: > > > > NO,

Re: peek package

2020-01-03 Thread Michael Schwendt
On Fri, 3 Jan 2020 12:14:37 +0100, Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski wrote: > > > > I suspect there would be interest in having a royalty free version of > > > > FFMPEG > > > > > > No, please, don't do this. It will be a huge headache for RPM Fusion > > > maintainers. > > > > What sort of

Re: peek package

2020-01-03 Thread Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski
On Friday, 03 January 2020 at 11:14, Michael Schwendt wrote: > On Thu, 2 Jan 2020 13:07:40 +0100, Vitaly Zaitsev via devel wrote: > > > On 02.01.2020 10:05, Benson Muite wrote: > > > I suspect there would be interest in having a royalty free version of > > > FFMPEG > > > > No, please, don't

Re: peek package

2020-01-03 Thread Michael Schwendt
On Thu, 2 Jan 2020 13:07:40 +0100, Vitaly Zaitsev via devel wrote: > On 02.01.2020 10:05, Benson Muite wrote: > > I suspect there would be interest in having a royalty free version of > > FFMPEG > > No, please, don't do this. It will be a huge headache for RPM Fusion > maintainers. What sort

Re: peek package

2020-01-03 Thread František Šumšal
On 1/3/20 10:49 AM, Leigh Scott wrote: >> But what about users which actually have ffmpeg installed? Do you think >> they don't deserve having peek in menu? >> >> On Fri, Jan 3, 2020, 04:02 John M. Harris Jr > wrote: > > NO, it's not required on cinnamon, users can use the screenshot+ Record >

Re: peek package

2020-01-03 Thread Leigh Scott
> But what about users which actually have ffmpeg installed? Do you think > they don't deserve having peek in menu? > > On Fri, Jan 3, 2020, 04:02 John M. Harris Jr wrote: NO, it's not required on cinnamon, users can use the screenshot+ Record desktop applet instead.

Re: peek package

2020-01-03 Thread Samuel Sieb
On 1/2/20 6:55 PM, John M. Harris Jr wrote: On Wednesday, January 1, 2020 7:34:27 PM MST Leigh Scott wrote: Why we should drop such useful app just because it doesn't work on Cinnamon? It works on GNOME without ffpmeg and rpm fusion repo, see screenshot [1]. Please prevent your useless app

Re: peek package

2020-01-03 Thread Igor Gnatenko
But what about users which actually have ffmpeg installed? Do you think they don't deserve having peek in menu? On Fri, Jan 3, 2020, 04:02 John M. Harris Jr wrote: > On Wednesday, January 1, 2020 7:34:27 PM MST Leigh Scott wrote: > > > Why we should drop such useful app just because it doesn't

Re: peek package

2020-01-02 Thread John M. Harris Jr
On Wednesday, January 1, 2020 7:34:27 PM MST Leigh Scott wrote: > > Why we should drop such useful app just because it doesn't work on > > Cinnamon? It works on GNOME without ffpmeg and rpm fusion repo, see > > screenshot [1]. > > > Please prevent your useless app from displaying in cinnamon

Re: peek package

2020-01-02 Thread Vitaly Zaitsev via devel
On 02.01.2020 13:12, Damian Ivanov wrote: > Peek is on Flathub btw. Flathub is a third-party repository with low-quality packages. I'm not going to trust it. -- Sincerely, Vitaly Zaitsev (vit...@easycoding.org) ___ devel mailing list --

Re: peek package

2020-01-02 Thread Mattia Verga via devel
Il 02/01/20 12:05, Michael Schwendt ha scritto: > On Thu, 02 Jan 2020 10:02:25 +, Mattia Verga via devel wrote: > >> In my original post I had CC'ed `peek-maintai...@fedoraproject.org` and >> I supposed this would have reached you directly. I did not know this >> isn't working anymore (I later

Re: peek package

2020-01-02 Thread Miro Hrončok
On 02. 01. 20 13:04, Michael Schwendt wrote: On Thu, 2 Jan 2020 11:24:08 +, Tom Hughes wrote: Actually I believe PACKAGENAME-maintainers@ (with an s) is now the preferred form and -owner is regarded as deprecated. Is this documented _anywhere_? The following page still mentions the

Re: peek package

2020-01-02 Thread Damian Ivanov
Peek is on Flathub btw. On Thu, Jan 2, 2020 at 2:08 PM Vitaly Zaitsev via devel wrote: > > On 02.01.2020 10:05, Benson Muite wrote: > > I suspect there would be interest in having a royalty free version of FFMPEG > > No, please, don't do this. It will be a huge headache for RPM Fusion >

Re: peek package

2020-01-02 Thread Vitaly Zaitsev via devel
On 02.01.2020 10:05, Benson Muite wrote: > I suspect there would be interest in having a royalty free version of FFMPEG No, please, don't do this. It will be a huge headache for RPM Fusion maintainers. -- Sincerely, Vitaly Zaitsev (vit...@easycoding.org)

Re: peek package

2020-01-02 Thread Michael Schwendt
On Thu, 2 Jan 2020 11:24:08 +, Tom Hughes wrote: > Actually I believe PACKAGENAME-maintainers@ (with an s) is now the > preferred form and -owner is regarded as deprecated. Is this documented _anywhere_? The following page still mentions the -owner alias

Re: peek package

2020-01-02 Thread Fabio Valentini
On Thu, Jan 2, 2020, 12:15 Artem Tim wrote: > No prob. :) But i didn't received any notification so this could be > upsetting a little bit if package was retired. Community barely fixed crash > dump recently [1] and Fedora users before often write me on email with > various questions, so this

Re: peek package

2020-01-02 Thread Tom Hughes
On 02/01/2020 11:05, Michael Schwendt wrote: On Thu, 02 Jan 2020 10:02:25 +, Mattia Verga via devel wrote: In my original post I had CC'ed `peek-maintai...@fedoraproject.org` and I supposed this would have reached you directly. I did not know this isn't working anymore (I later received an

Re: peek package

2020-01-02 Thread Artem Tim
No prob. :) But i didn't received any notification so this could be upsetting a little bit if package was retired. Community barely fixed crash dump recently [1] and Fedora users before often write me on email with various questions, so this makes me believe that app is not useless and users

Re: peek package

2020-01-02 Thread Michael Schwendt
On Thu, 02 Jan 2020 10:02:25 +, Mattia Verga via devel wrote: > In my original post I had CC'ed `peek-maintai...@fedoraproject.org` and > I supposed this would have reached you directly. I did not know this > isn't working anymore (I later received an unreachable address in > reply). So I

Re: peek package

2020-01-02 Thread Mattia Verga via devel
Il 02/01/20 09:52, Artem Tim ha scritto: > Perhaps OP should not sneaky asking for retiring functional package? Maybe he > should instead file a bug and ask maintainer first about this and discuss > with it? I might have miss this thread and didn't even notice it. TBH all > this just

Re: peek package

2020-01-02 Thread Benson Muite
On 1/2/20 12:05 PM, Benson Muite wrote: On 1/2/20 11:37 AM, Tom Hughes wrote: On 02/01/2020 06:53, Benson Muite wrote: There are a number of screen recording alternatives that are simpler than OBS Studio, including vokoscreen, Kazam, Simplescreenrecorder etc, The main problem is that most

Re: peek package

2020-01-02 Thread Benson Muite
On 1/2/20 11:37 AM, Tom Hughes wrote: On 02/01/2020 06:53, Benson Muite wrote: There are a number of screen recording alternatives that are simpler than OBS Studio, including vokoscreen, Kazam, Simplescreenrecorder etc, The main problem is that most depend on FFMPEG. FFMPEG has a license

Re: peek package

2020-01-02 Thread Artem Tim
Perhaps OP should not sneaky asking for retiring functional package? Maybe he should instead file a bug and ask maintainer first about this and discuss with it? I might have miss this thread and didn't even notice it. TBH all this just demotivating from packaging something at all.

Re: peek package

2020-01-02 Thread Tom Hughes
On 02/01/2020 06:53, Benson Muite wrote: There are a number of screen recording alternatives that are simpler than OBS Studio, including vokoscreen, Kazam, Simplescreenrecorder etc, The main problem is that most depend on FFMPEG. FFMPEG has a license that is compatible with the main Fedora

Re: peek package

2020-01-01 Thread Artem Tim
> You started the drama by picking on cinnamon! Me started drama? Cinnamon mentioned by original poster and he even post a link on github issue where title is: 'Peek fails to start in Cinnamon on Fedora 30' https://github.com/phw/peek/issues/485 ___

Re: peek package

2020-01-01 Thread Leigh Scott
> On 1/2/20 9:18 AM, Artem Tim wrote: > There are a number of screen recording alternatives that are > simpler > than OBS Studio, including vokoscreen, Kazam, Simplescreenrecorder etc, > The main problem is that most depend on FFMPEG. FFMPEG has a license > that is compatible with the main

Re: peek package

2020-01-01 Thread Leigh Scott
> * Leigh Scott [02/01/2020 02:34] : > > This is not being excellent to each other. Please consider respecting the > project policy when you are posting to a Fedora mailing list. > > Emmanuel Perhaps he shouldn't have singled out cinnamon when it equally applies to all DE's apart from gnome!

Re: peek package

2020-01-01 Thread Leigh Scott
> Also this whole issue is more suitable for regular bug report, not for such > drama in > mailing list and salt. You started the drama by picking on cinnamon! ___ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to

Re: peek package

2020-01-01 Thread Igor Gnatenko
The problem with this approach is that when you install ffmpeg, it still won't be shown in those DEs. On Thu, Jan 2, 2020, 01:57 Kevin Fenzi wrote: > On Wed, Jan 01, 2020 at 09:13:28PM -, Artem Tim wrote: > > > "All package dependencies (build-time or runtime, regular, weak or > otherwise)

Re: peek package

2020-01-01 Thread Benson Muite
On 1/2/20 9:18 AM, Artem Tim wrote: What is alternative to Peek? OBS Studio is totally different beast. OBS more advanced, using Qt framework, available only in RPM Fusion repo. Users asked many time about this Peek and why it is not available in repo and they really like it because of their

Re: peek package

2020-01-01 Thread Artem Tim
> Please prevent your useless app from displaying in cinnamon menu, I'm sure > Mate, XFCE > and LXDE would also like it removed from their menus as well. What is alternative to Peek? OBS Studio is totally different beast. OBS more advanced, using Qt framework, available only in RPM Fusion repo.

Re: peek package

2020-01-01 Thread Artem Tim
> Then OnlyShowIN=Gnome in the desktop file seems like a possible > solution. @Kevin, i'll do shortly. Also i filed a bug in upstream https://github.com/phw/peek/issues/539 ___ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an

Re: peek package

2020-01-01 Thread Emmanuel
* Leigh Scott [02/01/2020 02:34] : > > Please prevent your useless app [] This is not being excellent to each other. Please consider respecting the project policy when you are posting to a Fedora mailing list. Emmanuel ___ devel mailing list --

Re: peek package

2020-01-01 Thread Leigh Scott
> Why we should drop such useful app just because it doesn't work on Cinnamon? > It works > on GNOME without ffpmeg and rpm fusion repo, see screenshot [1]. Please prevent your useless app from displaying in cinnamon menu, I'm sure Mate, XFCE and LXDE would also like it removed from their menus

Re: peek package

2020-01-01 Thread Kevin Fenzi
On Wed, Jan 01, 2020 at 09:13:28PM -, Artem Tim wrote: > > "All package dependencies (build-time or runtime, regular, weak or > > otherwise) > > MUST ALWAYS be satisfiable within the official Fedora repositories." > > >

Re: peek package

2020-01-01 Thread Artem Tim
> "All package dependencies (build-time or runtime, regular, weak or otherwise) > MUST ALWAYS be satisfiable within the official Fedora repositories." > https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/WeakDependencies/ > "As with regular dependencies, weak dependencies MUST be

Re: peek package

2020-01-01 Thread Kevin Fenzi
On Wed, Jan 01, 2020 at 08:33:26PM -, Artem Tim wrote: > > The `peek` package has been approved in Fedora repositories [1], but it > > doesn't even start without ffmpeg installed [2], which is not > > distributed in Fedora repositories (but is available in rpmfusion): >

Re: peek package

2020-01-01 Thread Artem Tim
> The `peek` package has been approved in Fedora repositories [1], but it > doesn't even start without ffmpeg installed [2], which is not > distributed in Fedora repositories (but is available in rpmfusion): Why we should drop such useful app just because it doesn't work on Cinnamon?

Re: peek package

2020-01-01 Thread Fabio Valentini
On Wed, Jan 1, 2020, 15:51 Mattia Verga via devel < devel@lists.fedoraproject.org> wrote: > The `peek` package has been approved in Fedora repositories [1], but it > doesn't even start without ffmpeg installed [2], which is not > distributed in Fedora repositories (but is availab

Re: peek package

2020-01-01 Thread Carson Black
: > > The `peek` package has been approved in Fedora repositories [1], but it > doesn't even start without ffmpeg installed [2], which is not > distributed in Fedora repositories (but is available in rpmfusion): > > $ peek > Error: Child process exited with code 1 > Unable

peek package

2020-01-01 Thread Mattia Verga via devel
The `peek` package has been approved in Fedora repositories [1], but it doesn't even start without ffmpeg installed [2], which is not distributed in Fedora repositories (but is available in rpmfusion): $ peek Error: Child process exited with code 1 Unable to create default screen recorder