Re: Reverse weak dependencies in RPMFusion packages

2016-09-03 Thread Ben Rosser 
On Sat, Sep 3, 2016 at 1:24 PM, Ralf Corsepius  wrote:

> On 09/03/2016 01:50 PM, Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski wrote:
>
>> Dear RPMFusion contributors!
>>
>> In light of https://fedorahosted.org/council/ticket/61 and
>> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Workstation/Third_party_software_proposal
>> should we start adding Supplements: or Enhances: weak dependencies
>> to, say, ffmpeg and other packages?
>>
>
> IMHO, no. This decision is severe mistake.
>
> Ralf
>

Which decision are you referring to-- the third party software proposal?
I'm not really sure how it's relevant to the situation of using reverse
weak deps in RPM Fusion on packages in Fedora. I think it might be valuable
to have a separate discussion about it though, because it seems to entirely
short circuit existing efforts to provide additional (sometimes nonfree)
software for Fedora-- namely, this one.

In any case, in regards to the original topic at hand, I think it makes
sense to use reverse weak deps in RPM Fusion where appropriate.

Ben Rosser

Re: Reverse weak dependencies in RPMFusion packages

2016-09-03 Thread Kevin Kofler 
Ralf Corsepius wrote:

> On 09/03/2016 01:50 PM, Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski wrote:
>> Dear RPMFusion contributors!
>>
>> In light of https://fedorahosted.org/council/ticket/61 and
>> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Workstation/Third_party_software_proposal
>> should we start adding Supplements: or Enhances: weak dependencies
>> to, say, ffmpeg and other packages?
> 
> IMHO, no. This decision is severe mistake.

Why? This use case is exactly what the reverse versions are for. The Fedora 
repository should not know about RPM Fusion, RPM Fusion should know about 
Fedora. So why should Fedora carry the weak dependencies on RPM Fusion 
packages?

Kevin Kofler

Re: Reverse weak dependencies in RPMFusion packages

2016-09-03 Thread Ralf Corsepius 

On 09/03/2016 01:50 PM, Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski wrote:

Dear RPMFusion contributors!

In light of https://fedorahosted.org/council/ticket/61 and
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Workstation/Third_party_software_proposal
should we start adding Supplements: or Enhances: weak dependencies
to, say, ffmpeg and other packages?


IMHO, no. This decision is severe mistake.

Ralf

Re: ffmpeg for EL7

2016-09-03 Thread Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski 
On Thursday, 01 September 2016 at 19:21, Orion Poplawski wrote:
> On 08/31/2016 07:11 PM, Sérgio Basto wrote:
> > Orion Poplawski, I'd like have an agreement on how put ffmpeg in epel7.
> > What you say ? may we have one ffmpeg ? , should we have multi ffmpegs
> > ? etc. 
> 
> So would I. But I seem to have offended Nicolas enough that discussion has
> stopped.
> 
> I think that the ffmpegX.Y packages allow for a better transition in the
> future when 2.8 becomes unsupported, as well as allowing packages that need
> 3.1 to use it now.  But it is definitely more complex and there may be other
> gotchas.  However, I do feel that this is the way more and more packages are
> going, especially in EPEL.  For example, with zabbix, we have zabbix20 and
> zabbix22, but no "zabbix".
> 
> If the consensus is to ship 2.8 as ffmpeg now, and then presumably switch to
> 3.X later and ship ffmpeg-compat-2.8 later, that seems workable as well.
> Traditionally compat packages have only shipped runtime libs, but you could
> ship the full thing as well if needed.

+1 to ffmpeg28, ffmpeg31 etc. You just need to watch the ABI changes
carefully and make sure no package ends up depending on both.

Regards,
Dominik
-- 
Fedora http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Rathann
RPMFusion http://rpmfusion.org
"Faith manages."
-- Delenn to Lennier in Babylon 5:"Confessions and Lamentations"

[Bug 4009] Review request: qmplay2 - A Qt based media player, streamer and downloader

2016-09-03 Thread RPM Fusion Bugzilla 
http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=4009

MartinKG  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
 Resolution|--- |FIXED

--- Comment #25 from MartinKG  ---
The import and build have been done correctly.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.