On 07/14/2013 01:52 AM, John Pilkington wrote:
On 14/07/13 07:19, Yasha Karant wrote:
On 07/13/2013 01:14 AM, John Pilkington wrote:
On 13/07/13 08:15, Yasha Karant wrote:
On 07/12/2013 05:38 PM, Todd And Margo Chester wrote:
On 07/12/2013 01:05 PM, Yasha Karant wrote:
The issue is that the application would not pass configure without
disabling these options. I have tried the various pre-built RPMs for
vlc that have been mentioned, but all the ones that I have found have
dependencies that cause conflicts with other versions of the same
dependency (typically, some .so package). Because the linux
application
environment is not polymorphic with encapsulation, one cannot have
both
versions of some such dependency installed.
Hi Yasha,
It was a total pain in the butt the first few times
through. I had to do a lot of "rpm -e xxx" and waiting
until yum would finally stop bitching.
I did get there eventually and haven't had a problem
since. Stick to it and you will get there too.
-T
Hi Todd,
My understanding is that your procedure can result in system
instability
because of the lack of polymorphism and encapsulation. If one uses
repositories other than those from SL6 or from those repositories that
claim the use thereof will not introduce stock (SL6x)
incompatibilities,
then getting an application that requires such incompatible RPMs may
cause problems. The solution of erasing the conflicting RPM and
presumably loading a replacement RPM that is not part of the stock
compatible distribution can "break" other applications that are
dependent upon such RPMs.
Building from a SRPM probably will not solve the problem because the
source RPM presumably requires the same RPMs (or SRPMs) that either do
not exist for stock SL6x or conflict with stock SL6x RPMs. Again --
are
there any SL6x compatible source packages or installable RPMs that
supply the functionalities that I had to disable in building the
current
production vlc application from source?
Yasha Karant
I have vlc 2.0.7 installed on my SL6 i686 laptop. It's from rpmfusion,
which has, I understand, stricter policies on compliance than ATrpms. I
don't know what, if any, restrictions were applied in the build, and I
haven't tried it on many file formats, but it works well for me. Have
you tried/considered it?
Perhaps I should add that I'm also using an elrepo kernel and
kde-unstable.
Here's the 64-bit version. extras, devel are there too.
http://download1.rpmfusion.org/free/el/updates/testing/6/x86_64/vlc-2.0.7-1.el6.x86_64.rpm
John P
I installed the rpmfusion repository, found vlc 2.0.6, and allowed the
GUI add/remove software to proceed. vlc 2.0.6 now is installed on my
IA-32 laptop; when I get to the office, I will proceed with the same for
X86-64.
Are you aware if this vlc includes all needed codecs, some of which
evidently only can be installed from EU sources?
Otherwise, the rpmfusion repository seems to provide all of the needed
dependencies. (Note from the rpmfusion instructions: You need to
enable EPEL on RHEL 5 & 6 or compatible distributions like CentOS before
you enable RPM Fusion for EL.)
Thank you for the reference.
Yasha Karant
I may be mistaken, but I think vlc uses its own codecs. On my Fedora 17
box there's a folder /usr/lib64/vlc/plugins/codec/, installed from
vlc-core. See eg Yum-extender, Package Filelist.
I thought you wanted 2.0.7? Note that that is in the testing repo.
Enabling that should give a mirrorlist.
mirrorlist=http://mirrors.rpmfusion.org/mirrorlist?repo=free-fedora-updates-testing-$releasever&arch=$basearch
HTH
John P
John,
Although vlc 2.0.7 is the current stable production release from vlc, it
is not the same from the rpmfusion respository, for which 2.0.6 is
stable. I avoid (if at all possible) any "testing", pre-production, or
beta releases on any production machine. My experience has been that
introducing a "testing" release from many of these repositories also
gets "testing" versions of core libraries and other functionalities,
some of which truly are not ready for "prime time" -- vlc 2.0.7 may be
production, but some other library release version that is being used
with the repository release, but which otherwise is not required for the
application in question, also is so mandated but only by the repository.
Sometimes, functionality requires the installation of testing software
on a production machine -- particularly if the "stable" release does not
support some otherwise Microsoft-only hardware (the USA has found
Microsoft to be a monopoly, but has forced no meaningful remedies,
unlike the EU for which at least some parts of the monopoly have been
broken through either enforced compatibility or reverse engineered "open
systems" workarounds for which Microsoft effectively cannot sue the
provider within the EU).
Thus, I stayed with 2.0.6 that (presumably) is a large improvement over
the 1.x vlc I had been using.
Thanks again.
Yasha Karant
