Re: [packman] VLC 2.0
On 2012-04-10 09:42:09 (+0100), Cristian Morales Vega reddw...@opensuse.org wrote: On 10 April 2012 05:39, rlee rleev...@gmail.com wrote: My question is it possible to repackage VLC2.0 so that when one updates they'll get the vlc-aout-pulse along with it instead of having to do this separately? The package is fine. It's the repo that's broken: http://lists.links2linux.de/pipermail/packman/2011-November/010441.html The metadata of the repositories is (re-)created separately from our OBS instance on the public file server, which is a Debian with some version of createrepo. I wonder whether that version of createrepo is too old or whether we have to apply additional openSUSE specific patches. The former seems quite likely already, as openSUSE 12.1 ships createrepo 0.9.8, and our server has 0.4.9. Marc, could you please have a look at upgrading createrepo to something more recent? As build.o.o is down at the moment (or at least having heavy hiccups), I can't check whether we apply patches to it right now. cheers -- -o) Pascal Bleser /\\ http://opensuse.org -- we haz green _\_v http://fosdem.org -- we haz conf pgpeQbZbVt1v8.pgp Description: PGP signature ___ Packman mailing list Packman@links2linux.de http://lists.links2linux.de/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/packman
Re: [packman] VLC 2.0
On 10 April 2012 05:39, rlee rleev...@gmail.com wrote: My question is it possible to repackage VLC2.0 so that when one updates they'll get the vlc-aout-pulse along with it instead of having to do this separately? The package is fine. It's the repo that's broken: http://lists.links2linux.de/pipermail/packman/2011-November/010441.html ___ Packman mailing list Packman@links2linux.de http://lists.links2linux.de/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/packman
Re: [packman] VLC 2.0
On Tue, Apr 10, 2012 at 3:42 AM, Cristian Morales Vega reddw...@opensuse.org wrote: On 10 April 2012 05:39, rlee rleev...@gmail.com wrote: My question is it possible to repackage VLC2.0 so that when one updates they'll get the vlc-aout-pulse along with it instead of having to do this separately? The package is fine. It's the repo that's broken: http://lists.links2linux.de/pipermail/packman/2011-November/010441.html Thank You -- robbie ___ Packman mailing list Packman@links2linux.de http://lists.links2linux.de/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/packman
[packman] VLC 2.0
For Suse users one needs to install vlc-aout-pulse through Yast or zypper. read about it in the Suse Forums here: http://forums.opensuse.org/english/get-technical-help-here/applications/474147-vlc-2-sound-problems-2.html at post number 10. My question is it possible to repackage VLC2.0 so that when one updates they'll get the vlc-aout-pulse along with it instead of having to do this separately? One more thing the addition of this fixes the phonon-vlc-plugin problems too. robbie -- robbie ___ Packman mailing list Packman@links2linux.de http://lists.links2linux.de/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/packman
Re: [packman] vlc 2.0
Am 06.04.2012 01:46, schrieb Manfred Tremmel: Am Freitag, 6. April 2012, 01:01:04 schrieben Sie: 1.1.20.1-60.2 from Packman I can't belive, our current version for openSUSE 11.4 is 1.1.20.1-58.12 Whatever. The package says: 1.1.20.1-60.2 Fr 06 Jan 2012 18:33:08 CET Sa 07 Jan 2012 20:43:35 CET Productivity/Multimedia/Video/Players GPLv2+ ; Public Domain, Freeware 1,3 MiB 0 B Essentials / openSUSE_11.4 http://packman.links2linux.de packman@links2linux.de x86_64 http://www.xine-project.org/home xine-lib-1.1.20.1-60.2 0 Guenter Bartsch guen...@sourceforge.net Maybe the package got downgraded afterwards and my system refused to auto-downgrade... What way do you use to update the package? Yast2 from KDE Do you have Packman Repository as Install-Source? Yes Which mirror do you use. URL: ftp://ftp.gwdg.de/pub/linux/misc/packman/suse/openSUSE_11.4/ Hm, should be a good source. Maybe you should make a zypper dup to get all the updates. If I select VLC to Upgrade it complains about vlc-nox If I select vlc-nox it complains about libpostproc.so.52 If I select libpostproc.so.52 it complains about libavutil51 to be 0.10.2 libavutil51 is installed as version 0.9.1 It offers 0.10.2 as update. If I select this for update it says: libpostproc51-0.9.1 needs libavutil51=0.9.1 ffmpeg 0.9.1 was replaced by ffmpeg 0.10 (and now 0.10.2) in January If I chose to delete libpostproc51-0.9.1 it gives me: libcine1-codecs-1.1.20.1-60.2 needs libpostproc.so.51... Update the packman packages to the latest versions, and this shouldn't happen anymore. Upgraded all, and DOWNGRADED where applicable (although I don't understand why older versions are shipped. See other post). One thing that's missing now: Phonon-vlc-backend. That's bad because the gstreamer fluendo thing doesn't work with some sort of mp3s. Is there a plan to bring phonon-vlc back? Cheers, Martin ___ Packman mailing list Packman@links2linux.de http://lists.links2linux.de/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/packman
Re: [packman] vlc 2.0
Am 06.04.2012 10:20, schrieb Smartysmart34: One thing that's missing now: Phonon-vlc-backend. That's bad because the gstreamer fluendo thing doesn't work with some sort of mp3s. Is there a plan to bring phonon-vlc back? I just found an info that the phonon-vlc version required for VLC 2.0 is 0.5. Packman still has the old version 0.3something. Maybe someone can upgrade that too?!? But it seems it requires Phonon 4.6 and Suse 11.4 ships 4.4 Any hopes to get this up and flying? ___ Packman mailing list Packman@links2linux.de http://lists.links2linux.de/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/packman
Re: [packman] vlc 2.0
On Thursday 05 April 2012 09:16:20 Pascal Bleser wrote: JFYI, been working on vlc 2.0 the past few days. I obviously started from dimstar's spec file but made a few adjustments to build properly on all our distros in Essential, and also enabled libtar support. Hence I had to package a few things only for SLE_11, SLE-11-SP2, and sometimes for Evergreen_11.1 or 11.2 in order to have all the dependencies (those packages are named libxxx-for-sle or libxxx-for-older-than-11.4, etc... in Essentials). vlc = 2.0 won't build for SLE_11 though, as it requires qt4 = 4.6, but I'll keep vlc 1.1.x for SLE_11 only in Essentials/vlc-old. phonon-backend-vlc builds just fine with vlc-2.0.1 (just needs a few changes to the spec file as it currently requires vlc 1.2). I can't test it myself, but I'll submit the changes and if people notice that phonon-backend-vlc is broken at runtime, I'll see what I can do, but that would essentially mean prodding the phonon-backend-vlc upstream devs (which is going to be fun for something that seems to be unmaintained, so let's hope it just works.) I've just submitted vlc 2.0.1 to replace vlc 1.1.x in Essentials/vlc. Please report issues at upstream first, as this is a fairly standard build of vlc with only very few patches, unless it's clearly a packaging issue. If you don't know whether it's a packaging issue, it's not, and do report upstream :) I personally hate _service files with a vengeance, but I'm using it in this case, as vlc-2.0.1.tar.xz is 17MB ^^ It is going to take some time to build, including all the dependencies, but it should hit the mirrors in a few hours (some mirrors pull every hour, some only every four hours), or be available by tomorrow at worst. cheers I have been running the old phonon-backend-vlc against vlc 2.0 ignoring the dependency conflict, and I haven't seen any problems. ___ Packman mailing list Packman@links2linux.de http://lists.links2linux.de/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/packman
[packman] vlc 2.0
JFYI, been working on vlc 2.0 the past few days. I obviously started from dimstar's spec file but made a few adjustments to build properly on all our distros in Essential, and also enabled libtar support. Hence I had to package a few things only for SLE_11, SLE-11-SP2, and sometimes for Evergreen_11.1 or 11.2 in order to have all the dependencies (those packages are named libxxx-for-sle or libxxx-for-older-than-11.4, etc... in Essentials). vlc = 2.0 won't build for SLE_11 though, as it requires qt4 = 4.6, but I'll keep vlc 1.1.x for SLE_11 only in Essentials/vlc-old. phonon-backend-vlc builds just fine with vlc-2.0.1 (just needs a few changes to the spec file as it currently requires vlc 1.2). I can't test it myself, but I'll submit the changes and if people notice that phonon-backend-vlc is broken at runtime, I'll see what I can do, but that would essentially mean prodding the phonon-backend-vlc upstream devs (which is going to be fun for something that seems to be unmaintained, so let's hope it just works.) I've just submitted vlc 2.0.1 to replace vlc 1.1.x in Essentials/vlc. Please report issues at upstream first, as this is a fairly standard build of vlc with only very few patches, unless it's clearly a packaging issue. If you don't know whether it's a packaging issue, it's not, and do report upstream :) I personally hate _service files with a vengeance, but I'm using it in this case, as vlc-2.0.1.tar.xz is 17MB ^^ It is going to take some time to build, including all the dependencies, but it should hit the mirrors in a few hours (some mirrors pull every hour, some only every four hours), or be available by tomorrow at worst. cheers -- -o) Pascal Bleser /\\ http://opensuse.org -- we haz green _\_v http://fosdem.org -- we haz conf pgpxxZdw1gApj.pgp Description: PGP signature ___ Packman mailing list Packman@links2linux.de http://lists.links2linux.de/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/packman
Re: [packman] vlc 2.0
On Thu, Apr 5, 2012 at 9:16 AM, Pascal Bleser pascal.ble...@opensuse.org wrote: phonon-backend-vlc builds just fine with vlc-2.0.1 (just needs a few changes to the spec file as it currently requires vlc 1.2). I can't test it myself, but I'll submit the changes and if people notice that phonon-backend-vlc is broken at runtime, I'll see what I can do, but that would essentially mean prodding the phonon-backend-vlc upstream devs (which is going to be fun for something that seems to be unmaintained, so let's hope it just works.) It doesn't appear to be unmaintained, it has been getting a steady stream of git commits, with the last 8 days ago, and the last release 7 weeks ago. The version in packman is out of date, though. I will submit an updated version. -Todd ___ Packman mailing list Packman@links2linux.de http://lists.links2linux.de/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/packman
Re: [packman] vlc 2.0
On 5 April 2012 08:16, Pascal Bleser pascal.ble...@opensuse.org wrote: Hence I had to package a few things only for SLE_11, SLE-11-SP2, and sometimes for Evergreen_11.1 or 11.2 in order to have all the dependencies (those packages are named libxxx-for-sle or libxxx-for-older-than-11.4, etc... in Essentials). libmatroska-for-older-than-11.4, libebml-for-older-than-11.4, lash-for-sle and fluidsynth-for-sle were building against *every* version. I disabled the build to what I understood the name meant (older-than-11.4 includes both SLE_11 and SLE-11-SP2?) and wiped the binaries. Unrelated... why are we building against both SLE_11 and SLE-11-SP2? Every binary compiled against SLE_11 should work with SLE-11-SP2. ___ Packman mailing list Packman@links2linux.de http://lists.links2linux.de/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/packman
Re: [packman] vlc 2.0
On Thu, Apr 5, 2012 at 3:06 PM, Cristian Morales Vega reddw...@opensuse.org wrote: On 5 April 2012 08:16, Pascal Bleser pascal.ble...@opensuse.org wrote: Hence I had to package a few things only for SLE_11, SLE-11-SP2, and sometimes for Evergreen_11.1 or 11.2 in order to have all the dependencies (those packages are named libxxx-for-sle or libxxx-for-older-than-11.4, etc... in Essentials). libmatroska-for-older-than-11.4, libebml-for-older-than-11.4, lash-for-sle and fluidsynth-for-sle were building against *every* version. I disabled the build to what I understood the name meant (older-than-11.4 includes both SLE_11 and SLE-11-SP2?) and wiped the binaries. Unrelated... why are we building against both SLE_11 and SLE-11-SP2? Every binary compiled against SLE_11 should work with SLE-11-SP2. I am going to be out of town for the weekend, but I submitted an updated version of phone-backend-vlc with the latest version: http://pmbs.links2linux.org/request/show/175 There were some build errors for openSUSE 12.1. I think I fixed them, but with vlc no longer working I cannot test the build, so there may still be build errors. If the new version of the backend is not in the repo by tuesday when I get back I will take another look. -Todd ___ Packman mailing list Packman@links2linux.de http://lists.links2linux.de/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/packman
Re: [packman] vlc 2.0
Am 05.04.2012 15:06, schrieb Cristian Morales Vega: On 5 April 2012 08:16, Pascal Bleserpascal.ble...@opensuse.org wrote: Hence I had to package a few things only for SLE_11, SLE-11-SP2, and sometimes for Evergreen_11.1 or 11.2 in order to have all the dependencies (those packages are named libxxx-for-sle or libxxx-for-older-than-11.4, etc... in Essentials). libmatroska-for-older-than-11.4, libebml-for-older-than-11.4, lash-for-sle and fluidsynth-for-sle were building against *every* version. I disabled the build to what I understood the name meant (older-than-11.4 includes both SLE_11 and SLE-11-SP2?) and wiped the binaries. Unrelated... why are we building against both SLE_11 and SLE-11-SP2? Every binary compiled against SLE_11 should work with SLE-11-SP2. right. I would prefer to remove SLE-11-SP2 and would change SLE_11 to: repository name=SLE_11 path repository=standard project=openSUSE.org:SUSE:SLE-11:SP1/ archx86_64/arch archi586/arch /repository Cheers -- Christian - Please do not 'CC' me on list mails. Just reply to the list :) Der ultimative shop für Sportbekleidung und Zubehör http://www.sc24.de ___ Packman mailing list Packman@links2linux.de http://lists.links2linux.de/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/packman
Re: [packman] vlc 2.0
On 2012-04-05 14:06:12 (+0100), Cristian Morales Vega reddw...@opensuse.org wrote: On 5 April 2012 08:16, Pascal Bleser pascal.ble...@opensuse.org wrote: Hence I had to package a few things only for SLE_11, SLE-11-SP2, and sometimes for Evergreen_11.1 or 11.2 in order to have all the dependencies (those packages are named libxxx-for-sle or libxxx-for-older-than-11.4, etc... in Essentials). libmatroska-for-older-than-11.4, libebml-for-older-than-11.4, lash-for-sle and fluidsynth-for-sle were building against *every* version. I disabled the build to what I understood the name meant (older-than-11.4 includes both SLE_11 and SLE-11-SP2?) and wiped the binaries. Yeah, I wrongly assumed that the meta in the branch would also be transferred through SRs, but they don't. Forgot to check and disable the in Essentials as well, thanks. Unrelated... why are we building against both SLE_11 and SLE-11-SP2? Every binary compiled against SLE_11 should work with SLE-11-SP2. Does it? I mean, really? SLE-11-SP2 ships different libs and different versions of libs so ... -- -o) Pascal Bleser /\\ http://opensuse.org -- we haz green _\_v http://fosdem.org -- we haz conf pgpZj2qfZK2Ey.pgp Description: PGP signature ___ Packman mailing list Packman@links2linux.de http://lists.links2linux.de/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/packman
Re: [packman] vlc 2.0
On 5 April 2012 14:27, todd rme toddrme2...@gmail.com wrote: There were some build errors for openSUSE 12.1. I think I fixed them, but with vlc no longer working I cannot test the build, so there may still be build errors. If the new version of the backend is not in the repo by tuesday when I get back I will take another look. phonon-backend-vlc 0.5.0 just requires phonon 4.6.0. Even if you bypass the cmake configuration to accept phonon 4.5.0 you find that: /home/abuild/rpmbuild/BUILD/phonon-backend-vlc-0.5.0/src/backend.cpp:36:45: fatal error: phonon/GlobalDescriptionContainer: No such file or directory I'm not going to look at that header to try to backport it to phonon 4.5. ___ Packman mailing list Packman@links2linux.de http://lists.links2linux.de/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/packman
Re: [packman] vlc 2.0
On 2012-04-05 15:54:17 (+0200), Christian ch...@computersalat.de wrote: Am 05.04.2012 15:06, schrieb Cristian Morales Vega: On 5 April 2012 08:16, Pascal Bleserpascal.ble...@opensuse.org wrote: Hence I had to package a few things only for SLE_11, SLE-11-SP2, and sometimes for Evergreen_11.1 or 11.2 in order to have all the dependencies (those packages are named libxxx-for-sle or libxxx-for-older-than-11.4, etc... in Essentials). libmatroska-for-older-than-11.4, libebml-for-older-than-11.4, lash-for-sle and fluidsynth-for-sle were building against *every* version. I disabled the build to what I understood the name meant (older-than-11.4 includes both SLE_11 and SLE-11-SP2?) and wiped the binaries. Unrelated... why are we building against both SLE_11 and SLE-11-SP2? Every binary compiled against SLE_11 should work with SLE-11-SP2. right. I would prefer to remove SLE-11-SP2 and would change SLE_11 to: repository name=SLE_11 path repository=standard project=openSUSE.org:SUSE:SLE-11:SP1/ archx86_64/arch archi586/arch /repository Henne added SLE-11-SP2. And why go with SP1 if we can go with SP2 ? I mean, this compatibility thing is only half true: e.g. SP2 ships with Qt = 4.8, while SP0 doesn't. I wouldn't mind, less distros to build against means less pain, and dropping old ones even more so. cheers -- -o) Pascal Bleser /\\ http://opensuse.org -- we haz green _\_v http://fosdem.org -- we haz conf pgp9gV083sfKQ.pgp Description: PGP signature ___ Packman mailing list Packman@links2linux.de http://lists.links2linux.de/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/packman
Re: [packman] vlc 2.0
Hi Unrelated... why are we building against both SLE_11 and SLE-11-SP2? Every binary compiled against SLE_11 should work with SLE-11-SP2. Does it? I mean, really? SLE-11-SP2 ships different libs and different versions of libs so ... If you have a package build against SLE_11 SP1 that does not work on a SLE_11 SP2 box, then you can tell to darix: #opensuse-buildservice.log --- Day changed Di Mär 20 2012 ... 15:46 ChrisWi where does the brilliant idea come from to have SLE_11_SP1 ?? why not stay on SLE_11 and change internally to SP1 ? 15:48 -!- maxlin [~max...@220-136-39-167.dynamic.hinet.net] has quit [Quit: Konversation terminated!] 15:51 Ammler there are more SLE repos as openSUSE repos in the meantime :-) 15:53 jnxa Talk about pointless rebuilds. 15:53 Ammler but I would assume, it is fine to use SLE_11_SP2 only, as this is still compatible back to SLE_11 15:53 _Marcus_ its not 15:53 _Marcus_ we had new glibc versions in both SP1 and SP2 15:53 _Marcus_ so SLE_11_SP2 packages will not install on SLES 11 GA or SP1 I would suspect 15:55 jnxa SP1: glibc 2.11.1. SP2: glibc 2.11.3. 15:55 Ammler ok, then I miss the sense to use SP instead real distro bumps 15:55 jnxa What a difference. 15:55 _Marcus_ its not much, the symbol versions might not have bumped ... 16:15 _Marcus_ SLE11 GA could actually go, as we do not support it anymore ... 18:40 darix ChrisWi: binaries for most stuff that is built on GA should work on sp1 or sp2 18:40 darix but not the other direction 18:40 darix kernel and a few others being an exception of course 18:43 ChrisWi darix: most is not all, and doesn't glibc affect all ? 18:43 darix ChrisWi: show us a binary compiled against GA or SP1 that doesnt work on SP2 anymore 18:43 darix :) 18:43 darix (caused by glibc) ... Cheers -- Christian - Please do not 'CC' me on list mails. Just reply to the list :) Der ultimative shop für Sportbekleidung und Zubehör http://www.sc24.de ___ Packman mailing list Packman@links2linux.de http://lists.links2linux.de/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/packman
Re: [packman] vlc 2.0
On Thu, 5 Apr 2012 16:43:58 +0200 Pascal Bleser pascal.ble...@opensuse.org wrote: On 2012-04-05 14:06:12 (+0100), Cristian Morales Vega reddw...@opensuse.org wrote: On 5 April 2012 08:16, Pascal Bleser pascal.ble...@opensuse.org wrote: Hence I had to package a few things only for SLE_11, SLE-11-SP2, and sometimes for Evergreen_11.1 or 11.2 in order to have all the dependencies (those packages are named libxxx-for-sle or libxxx-for-older-than-11.4, etc... in Essentials). libmatroska-for-older-than-11.4, libebml-for-older-than-11.4, lash-for-sle and fluidsynth-for-sle were building against *every* version. I disabled the build to what I understood the name meant (older-than-11.4 includes both SLE_11 and SLE-11-SP2?) and wiped the binaries. Yeah, I wrongly assumed that the meta in the branch would also be transferred through SRs, but they don't. Forgot to check and disable the in Essentials as well, thanks. Unrelated... why are we building against both SLE_11 and SLE-11-SP2? Every binary compiled against SLE_11 should work with SLE-11-SP2. Does it? I mean, really? SLE-11-SP2 ships different libs and different versions of libs so ... Hi SP2 is now a mixture of SP1 and SP2, see TID 7010225 for the new structure; http://www.novell.com/support/php/search.do?cmd=displayKCdocType=kcexternalId=7010225sliceId=1docTypeID=DT_TID_1_1dialogID=5603410stateId=0%200%205599447 -- Cheers Malcolm °¿° (Linux Counter #276890) SUSE Linux Enterprise Desktop 11 (x86_64) Kernel 3.0.13-0.27-default up 21:00, 3 users, load average: 0.00, 0.01, 0.05 CPU Intel i5 CPU M520@2.40GHz | Intel Arrandale GPU ___ Packman mailing list Packman@links2linux.de http://lists.links2linux.de/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/packman
Re: [packman] vlc 2.0
On 5 April 2012 15:45, Pascal Bleser pascal.ble...@opensuse.org wrote: Henne added SLE-11-SP2. And why go with SP1 if we can go with SP2 ? SP1 seems to be the oldest supported version. Building against it warranties it will work with all the supported versions of SLE-11 (those being SP1 and SP2, but no GA). I mean, this compatibility thing is only half true: e.g. SP2 ships with Qt = 4.8, while SP0 doesn't. Which means a binary build against SP2 perhaps will not work in SP0. But a binary build in SP0 will work in SP2 (if you trust Qt ABI is 100% stable). ___ Packman mailing list Packman@links2linux.de http://lists.links2linux.de/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/packman
Re: [packman] vlc 2.0
On 2012-04-05 16:02:30 (+0100), Cristian Morales Vega reddw...@opensuse.org wrote: On 5 April 2012 15:45, Pascal Bleser pascal.ble...@opensuse.org wrote: Henne added SLE-11-SP2. And why go with SP1 if we can go with SP2 ? SP1 seems to be the oldest supported version. Building against it warranties it will work with all the supported versions of SLE-11 (those being SP1 and SP2, but no GA). I mean, this compatibility thing is only half true: e.g. SP2 ships with Qt = 4.8, while SP0 doesn't. Which means a binary build against SP2 perhaps will not work in SP0. But a binary build in SP0 will work in SP2 (if you trust Qt ABI is 100% stable). Yes, but there are things we can build on SP2 which we can't build on SP1 (e.g. vlc 2.x). I guess that the ideal setup then would be to build Essentials against SP1, and then only build against SP2 when we can't build against SP1. The trouble though is that users of SP2 need to add both the (Packman) repo for SP1 and the (Packman) repo for SP2, at least if they want to use those additional packages (such as vlc 2.x). Still sounds like a viable option, but IMHO experience shows that this kind of information is very difficult to get across to users. Opinions? cheers -- -o) Pascal Bleser /\\ http://opensuse.org -- we haz green _\_v http://fosdem.org -- we haz conf pgpAofc3ZZ6Yd.pgp Description: PGP signature ___ Packman mailing list Packman@links2linux.de http://lists.links2linux.de/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/packman
Re: [packman] vlc 2.0
On Thu, 5 Apr 2012 17:09:29 +0200 Pascal Bleser pascal.ble...@opensuse.org wrote: On 2012-04-05 16:02:30 (+0100), Cristian Morales Vega reddw...@opensuse.org wrote: On 5 April 2012 15:45, Pascal Bleser pascal.ble...@opensuse.org wrote: Henne added SLE-11-SP2. And why go with SP1 if we can go with SP2 ? SP1 seems to be the oldest supported version. Building against it warranties it will work with all the supported versions of SLE-11 (those being SP1 and SP2, but no GA). I mean, this compatibility thing is only half true: e.g. SP2 ships with Qt = 4.8, while SP0 doesn't. Which means a binary build against SP2 perhaps will not work in SP0. But a binary build in SP0 will work in SP2 (if you trust Qt ABI is 100% stable). Yes, but there are things we can build on SP2 which we can't build on SP1 (e.g. vlc 2.x). I guess that the ideal setup then would be to build Essentials against SP1, and then only build against SP2 when we can't build against SP1. The trouble though is that users of SP2 need to add both the (Packman) repo for SP1 and the (Packman) repo for SP2, at least if they want to use those additional packages (such as vlc 2.x). Still sounds like a viable option, but IMHO experience shows that this kind of information is very difficult to get across to users. Opinions? cheers Hi Correct, they need to add both SP1 and SP2 just like the default repositories added (as indicated in the TID), the structure should follow the same concept. SP1 == SP1. SP2 = SP1 SP2. -- Cheers Malcolm °¿° (Linux Counter #276890) SUSE Linux Enterprise Desktop 11 (x86_64) Kernel 3.0.13-0.27-default up 21:24, 3 users, load average: 0.00, 0.01, 0.05 CPU Intel i5 CPU M520@2.40GHz | Intel Arrandale GPU ___ Packman mailing list Packman@links2linux.de http://lists.links2linux.de/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/packman
[packman] vlc 2.0
Hi all, Just tried to upgrade to VLC 2.0. I encountered a whole bunch of cross dependencies from libpostproc52, libavutil51, libxine1-codecs... So if I want to upgrade libavutil51 to the new version I will have to uninstall libpostproc51 and if I do so libxine1-codecs is broken. This is too much for me. How can I just upgrade to vlc 2.0 without breaking to much else? I'm on Suse 11.4/64. Kind regards, Martin Am 05.04.2012 17:19, schrieb Malcolm: On Thu, 5 Apr 2012 17:09:29 +0200 Pascal Bleser pascal.ble...@opensuse.org wrote: On 2012-04-05 16:02:30 (+0100), Cristian Morales Vega reddw...@opensuse.org wrote: On 5 April 2012 15:45, Pascal Bleser pascal.ble...@opensuse.org wrote: Henne added SLE-11-SP2. And why go with SP1 if we can go with SP2 ? SP1 seems to be the oldest supported version. Building against it warranties it will work with all the supported versions of SLE-11 (those being SP1 and SP2, but no GA). I mean, this compatibility thing is only half true: e.g. SP2 ships with Qt = 4.8, while SP0 doesn't. Which means a binary build against SP2 perhaps will not work in SP0. But a binary build in SP0 will work in SP2 (if you trust Qt ABI is 100% stable). Yes, but there are things we can build on SP2 which we can't build on SP1 (e.g. vlc 2.x). I guess that the ideal setup then would be to build Essentials against SP1, and then only build against SP2 when we can't build against SP1. The trouble though is that users of SP2 need to add both the (Packman) repo for SP1 and the (Packman) repo for SP2, at least if they want to use those additional packages (such as vlc 2.x). Still sounds like a viable option, but IMHO experience shows that this kind of information is very difficult to get across to users. Opinions? cheers Hi Correct, they need to add both SP1 and SP2 just like the default repositories added (as indicated in the TID), the structure should follow the same concept. SP1 == SP1. SP2 = SP1 SP2. ___ Packman mailing list Packman@links2linux.de http://lists.links2linux.de/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/packman
Re: [packman] vlc 2.0
Am Donnerstag, 5. April 2012, 22:24:25 schrieb Smartysmart34: Hi all, Just tried to upgrade to VLC 2.0. I encountered a whole bunch of cross dependencies from libpostproc52, libavutil51, libxine1-codecs... So if I want to upgrade libavutil51 to the new version I will have to uninstall libpostproc51 and if I do so libxine1-codecs is broken. Makes no sence, libxine is compiled against the same ffmpeg version like vlc, and not even since 2.0, also 1.1.3 was. What version of libxine1-codecs do you have installed? What way do you use to update the package? Do you have Packman Repository as Install-Source? Which mirror do you use. -- Machs gut| http://www.iivs.de/schwinde/buerger/tremmel/ Manfred | http://packman.links2linux.de/ ___ Packman mailing list Packman@links2linux.de http://lists.links2linux.de/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/packman
Re: [packman] vlc 2.0
Am 06.04.2012 00:29, schrieb Manfred Tremmel: Am Donnerstag, 5. April 2012, 22:24:25 schrieb Smartysmart34: Hi all, Just tried to upgrade to VLC 2.0. I encountered a whole bunch of cross dependencies from libpostproc52, libavutil51, libxine1-codecs... So if I want to upgrade libavutil51 to the new version I will have to uninstall libpostproc51 and if I do so libxine1-codecs is broken. Makes no sence, libxine is compiled against the same ffmpeg version like vlc, and not even since 2.0, also 1.1.3 was. What version of libxine1-codecs do you have installed? 1.1.20.1-60.2 from Packman What way do you use to update the package? Yast2 from KDE Do you have Packman Repository as Install-Source? Yes Which mirror do you use. URL: ftp://ftp.gwdg.de/pub/linux/misc/packman/suse/openSUSE_11.4/ If I select VLC to Upgrade it complains about vlc-nox If I select vlc-nox it complains about libpostproc.so.52 If I select libpostproc.so.52 it complains about libavutil51 to be 0.10.2 libavutil51 is installed as version 0.9.1 It offers 0.10.2 as update. If I select this for update it says: libpostproc51-0.9.1 needs libavutil51=0.9.1 If I chose to delete libpostproc51-0.9.1 it gives me: libcine1-codecs-1.1.20.1-60.2 needs libpostproc.so.51... so...?!? ___ Packman mailing list Packman@links2linux.de http://lists.links2linux.de/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/packman
Re: [packman] VLC 2.0
Am Sun, 11 Mar 2012 22:58:01 +0100 schrieb Ismail Doenmez idoen...@suse.de: Thanks! How about VLC? :) feel free... Detlef ___ Packman mailing list Packman@links2linux.de http://lists.links2linux.de/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/packman
Re: [packman] VLC 2.0
Hello Ismail, I got VLC 2.0 packaged by copying DimStar's (Dominique Leuenberger) original spec file. There is just one problem our live.spec is a mess (-devel package ships *.cpp and *.o files, include files are under %libdir). live-devel is no nice package, but it's only used for compiling vlc and mplayer. There's no need to install it if you don't want to compile this packages, so it's no enduser package. I've adopted it from henne and made only version updates, but no rework. If you are willing to spend time to make this package better, go on! -- Machs gut| http://www.iivs.de/schwinde/buerger/tremmel/ Manfred | http://packman.links2linux.de/ ___ Packman mailing list Packman@links2linux.de http://lists.links2linux.de/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/packman
Re: [packman] VLC 2.0
Hi; Am Sun 11 Mar 2012 10:56:47 PM CET schrieb Manfred Tremmel manf...@links2linux.de: Hello Ismail, I got VLC 2.0 packaged by copying DimStar's (Dominique Leuenberger) original spec file. There is just one problem our live.spec is a mess (-devel package ships *.cpp and *.o files, include files are under %libdir). live-devel is no nice package, but it's only used for compiling vlc and mplayer. There's no need to install it if you don't want to compile this packages, so it's no enduser package. I've adopted it from henne and made only version updates, but no rework. If you are willing to spend time to make this package better, go on! Thanks! How about VLC? :) Regards. -- Ismail Dönmez - openSUSE Booster SUSE LINUX Products GmbH Maxfeldstr. 5, 90409 Nürnberg, Germany GF: Jeff Hawn, Jennifer Guild, Felix Imendörffer, HRB 16746 (AG Nürnberg) ___ Packman mailing list Packman@links2linux.de http://lists.links2linux.de/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/packman
Re: [packman] VLC 2.0
Am Sonntag, 11. März 2012, 22:58:01 schrieb Ismail Doenmez: Hi; Am Sun 11 Mar 2012 10:56:47 PM CET schrieb Manfred Tremmel manf...@links2linux.de: Hello Ismail, I got VLC 2.0 packaged by copying DimStar's (Dominique Leuenberger) original spec file. There is just one problem our live.spec is a mess (-devel package ships *.cpp and *.o files, include files are under %libdir). live-devel is no nice package, but it's only used for compiling vlc and mplayer. There's no need to install it if you don't want to compile this packages, so it's no enduser package. I've adopted it from henne and made only version updates, but no rework. If you are willing to spend time to make this package better, go on! Thanks! How about VLC? :) It's non of my packages, I can't give you the allowance to change it. Detlef what's about it? -- Machs gut| http://www.iivs.de/schwinde/buerger/tremmel/ Manfred | http://packman.links2linux.de/ ___ Packman mailing list Packman@links2linux.de http://lists.links2linux.de/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/packman
[packman] VLC 2.0
Hi all, I got VLC 2.0 packaged by copying DimStar's (Dominique Leuenberger) original spec file. There is just one problem our live.spec is a mess (-devel package ships *.cpp and *.o files, include files are under %libdir). I am also willing to fix that but there might be some build failures due to that (which I can also take care of). What do you guys say, shall I proceed? Regards. -- Ismail Dönmez - openSUSE Booster SUSE LINUX Products GmbH Maxfeldstr. 5, 90409 Nürnberg, Germany GF: Jeff Hawn, Jennifer Guild, Felix Imendörffer, HRB 16746 (AG Nürnberg) ___ Packman mailing list Packman@links2linux.de http://lists.links2linux.de/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/packman
