Re: Problems with vlc

[Stephen Morris]

On 17/2/18 5:02 am, Rick Stevens wrote:

On 02/15/2018 01:43 PM, Stephen Morris wrote:

On 16/2/18 6:52 am, Rick Stevens wrote:

On 02/14/2018 01:43 PM, Stephen Morris wrote:

On 14/2/18 10:05 am, Patrick O'Callaghan wrote:

On Wed, 2018-02-14 at 08:08 +1100, Stephen Morris wrote:

So from my perspective the vlc package you had problems with works
fine
on my system.

The packages I have installed are:


bash-4.4$ rpm -qa vlc*
vlc-core-3.0.0-25.20180109git0c462fc.fc27.x86_64
vlc-3.0.0-25.20180109git0c462fc.fc27.x86_64

When using Negativo17 I never had a package called vlc, just vlc-core
and vlc-extras. The /usr/bin/vlc binary came from vlc-core. On
switching to RPMfusion I now have a package called vlc. So I wonder if
your installation is in fact from Negativo17.

I am definitely using the negativo17 packages. As a test I uninstalled
the vlc and vlc-core packages via yumex, and issued the vlc command in a
shell which told me it couldn't be found. I then went back into Yumex
and did a search for vlc, in the list of packages returned it said that
the vlc, vlc-core and vlc-extras package were from fedora-multimedia
which is negativo17, it did not provide me with any reference to vlc in
rpmfusion. I then installed vlc, vlc-core and vlc-extras (I didn't have
this one previously), ran vlc from the shell, and it work as I
documented previously. I have also checked on the negativo17 physical
repository and negativo17 does actually provide packages vlc, vlc-core
and vlc-extras. Looking at the file list from vlc and vlc-core, the vlc
package may not need to be installed. The vcl package provides files in
/usr/bin of qvlc and svlc, where the vlc-core package provides files in
/usr/bin of cvlc, nvlc, rvlc, vlc and vlc-wrapper. I haven't yet tried
the vlc functionality after uninstalling all 3 packages and just
installing vlc-core and vlc-extras.

I've also checked the physical rpmfusion repository and their free
repository also has packages vlc, vlc-core and vlc-extras, but they are
named differently to the negativo17 ones so there is no confusion as to
which is which. What I don't know yet is why a vlc search in Yumex
doesn't show me the rpmfusion ones?

I don't use yumex, but dnfdragora displays them--provided the
rpmfusion-free and rpmfusion-free-update repos are enabled.

  Particularly given that dnf info
vlc
tells me the installed vlc package is from fedora-multimedia and there
is a vlc package available from rpmfusion-free-updates and there is a
source package available from fedora-multimedia-source, which is what
dnf told before I did the uninstall and re-install.

My packages (as of this morning, using rpmfusion-*):

[root@golem4 ~]# dnf list vlc*
Last metadata expiration check: 0:19:21 ago on Thu 15 Feb 2018 11:22:18
AM PST.
Installed Packages
vlc.x86_64   3.0.0-1.fc27
@rpmfusion-free-updates
vlc-core.x86_64  3.0.0-1.fc27
@rpmfusion-free-updates
vlc-extras.x86_64    3.0.0-1.fc27
@rpmfusion-free-updates
Available Packages
vlc.i686 3.0.0-1.fc27
rpmfusion-free-updates
vlc-core.i686    3.0.0-1.fc27
rpmfusion-free-updates
vlc-devel.i686   3.0.0-1.fc27
rpmfusion-free-updates
vlc-devel.x86_64 3.0.0-1.fc27
rpmfusion-free-updates

Mine is as follows:

dnf list vlc*
Failed to synchronize cache for repo 'fedora-games', disabling.
Last metadata expiration check: 4 days, 21:34:58 ago on Sun 11 Feb 2018
10:48:39 AEDT.
Installed Packages
vlc.x86_64 1:3.0.0-25.20180109git0c462fc.fc27 @fedora-multimedia
vlc-core.x86_64 1:3.0.0-25.20180109git0c462fc.fc27 @fedora-multimedia
vlc-extras.x86_64 1:3.0.0-25.20180109git0c462fc.fc27 @System
Available Packages
vlc.i686 3.0.0-0.48.git20180109.rc5.fc27 rpmfusion-free-updates
vlc.src 1:3.0.0-25.20180109git0c462fc.fc27 fedora-multimedia-source
vlc-core.i686 3.0.0-0.48.git20180109.rc5.fc27 rpmfusion-free-updates
vlc-debugsource.x86_64 1:3.0.0-25.20180109git0c462fc.fc27 fedora-multimedia
vlc-devel.i686 1:3.0.0-25.20180109git0c462fc.fc27 fedora-multimedia
vlc-devel.x86_64 1:3.0.0-25.20180109git0c462fc.fc27 fedora-multimedia
vlc-plugin-jack.x86_64 1:3.0.0-25.20180109git0c462fc.fc27 fedora-multimedia


This output surprises me. The rpmfusion repositories are enabled, but
Yumex does not show the rpmfusion vlc versions as being installed even
after using it to uninstall the fedora-multimedia versions.

Huh? According to the above, you have the fedora-multimedia versions
installed, not the rpmfusion-free versions (although it's saying that
vlc-extras was installed from a local RPM file (the "@System" repo).


 If I issue
command vlc in a shell it runs the fedora-multimedia application. If I
use Yumex to uninstall vlc and vlc-core, then issue the command vlc in a
shell, it tells me the command doesn't exist. If I then use Yumex to
install the 

Re: Problems with vlc

[Rick Stevens]

On 02/15/2018 01:43 PM, Stephen Morris wrote:
> On 16/2/18 6:52 am, Rick Stevens wrote:
>> On 02/14/2018 01:43 PM, Stephen Morris wrote:
>>> On 14/2/18 10:05 am, Patrick O'Callaghan wrote:
 On Wed, 2018-02-14 at 08:08 +1100, Stephen Morris wrote:
> So from my perspective the vlc package you had problems with works
> fine
> on my system.
>
> The packages I have installed are:
>
>
> bash-4.4$ rpm -qa vlc*
> vlc-core-3.0.0-25.20180109git0c462fc.fc27.x86_64
> vlc-3.0.0-25.20180109git0c462fc.fc27.x86_64
 When using Negativo17 I never had a package called vlc, just vlc-core
 and vlc-extras. The /usr/bin/vlc binary came from vlc-core. On
 switching to RPMfusion I now have a package called vlc. So I wonder if
 your installation is in fact from Negativo17.
>>> I am definitely using the negativo17 packages. As a test I uninstalled
>>> the vlc and vlc-core packages via yumex, and issued the vlc command in a
>>> shell which told me it couldn't be found. I then went back into Yumex
>>> and did a search for vlc, in the list of packages returned it said that
>>> the vlc, vlc-core and vlc-extras package were from fedora-multimedia
>>> which is negativo17, it did not provide me with any reference to vlc in
>>> rpmfusion. I then installed vlc, vlc-core and vlc-extras (I didn't have
>>> this one previously), ran vlc from the shell, and it work as I
>>> documented previously. I have also checked on the negativo17 physical
>>> repository and negativo17 does actually provide packages vlc, vlc-core
>>> and vlc-extras. Looking at the file list from vlc and vlc-core, the vlc
>>> package may not need to be installed. The vcl package provides files in
>>> /usr/bin of qvlc and svlc, where the vlc-core package provides files in
>>> /usr/bin of cvlc, nvlc, rvlc, vlc and vlc-wrapper. I haven't yet tried
>>> the vlc functionality after uninstalling all 3 packages and just
>>> installing vlc-core and vlc-extras.
>>>
>>> I've also checked the physical rpmfusion repository and their free
>>> repository also has packages vlc, vlc-core and vlc-extras, but they are
>>> named differently to the negativo17 ones so there is no confusion as to
>>> which is which. What I don't know yet is why a vlc search in Yumex
>>> doesn't show me the rpmfusion ones?
>> I don't use yumex, but dnfdragora displays them--provided the
>> rpmfusion-free and rpmfusion-free-update repos are enabled.
>>>  Particularly given that dnf info
>>> vlc
>>> tells me the installed vlc package is from fedora-multimedia and there
>>> is a vlc package available from rpmfusion-free-updates and there is a
>>> source package available from fedora-multimedia-source, which is what
>>> dnf told before I did the uninstall and re-install.
>> My packages (as of this morning, using rpmfusion-*):
>>
>> [root@golem4 ~]# dnf list vlc*
>> Last metadata expiration check: 0:19:21 ago on Thu 15 Feb 2018 11:22:18
>> AM PST.
>> Installed Packages
>> vlc.x86_64   3.0.0-1.fc27
>> @rpmfusion-free-updates
>> vlc-core.x86_64  3.0.0-1.fc27
>> @rpmfusion-free-updates
>> vlc-extras.x86_64    3.0.0-1.fc27
>> @rpmfusion-free-updates
>> Available Packages
>> vlc.i686 3.0.0-1.fc27
>> rpmfusion-free-updates
>> vlc-core.i686    3.0.0-1.fc27
>> rpmfusion-free-updates
>> vlc-devel.i686   3.0.0-1.fc27
>> rpmfusion-free-updates
>> vlc-devel.x86_64 3.0.0-1.fc27
>> rpmfusion-free-updates
> 
> Mine is as follows:
> 
> dnf list vlc*
> Failed to synchronize cache for repo 'fedora-games', disabling.
> Last metadata expiration check: 4 days, 21:34:58 ago on Sun 11 Feb 2018
> 10:48:39 AEDT.
> Installed Packages
> vlc.x86_64 1:3.0.0-25.20180109git0c462fc.fc27 @fedora-multimedia
> vlc-core.x86_64 1:3.0.0-25.20180109git0c462fc.fc27 @fedora-multimedia
> vlc-extras.x86_64 1:3.0.0-25.20180109git0c462fc.fc27 @System
> Available Packages
> vlc.i686 3.0.0-0.48.git20180109.rc5.fc27 rpmfusion-free-updates
> vlc.src 1:3.0.0-25.20180109git0c462fc.fc27 fedora-multimedia-source
> vlc-core.i686 3.0.0-0.48.git20180109.rc5.fc27 rpmfusion-free-updates
> vlc-debugsource.x86_64 1:3.0.0-25.20180109git0c462fc.fc27 fedora-multimedia
> vlc-devel.i686 1:3.0.0-25.20180109git0c462fc.fc27 fedora-multimedia
> vlc-devel.x86_64 1:3.0.0-25.20180109git0c462fc.fc27 fedora-multimedia
> vlc-plugin-jack.x86_64 1:3.0.0-25.20180109git0c462fc.fc27 fedora-multimedia
> 
> 
> This output surprises me. The rpmfusion repositories are enabled, but
> Yumex does not show the rpmfusion vlc versions as being installed even
> after using it to uninstall the fedora-multimedia versions.

Huh? According to the above, you have the fedora-multimedia versions
installed, not the rpmfusion-free versions (although it's saying that
vlc-extras was installed from a local RPM file (the "@System" repo).

>  

Re: Problems with vlc

[Wolfgang Pfeiffer]

On Thu, 15 Feb 2018 10:21:27 +0800
Ed Greshko  wrote:

> >  
> IMO, I feel the problem with using the Fedora name in a repo or site makes 
> people
> think it is formally affiliated with and endorsed by The Fedora Project.  
> Companies
> such as Disney, Apple, Samsung, and others go to great lengths to protect 
> their
> brand.  Why should Fedora be any different?

Because Linux companies are not as anal as other companies?

Because Linux users who add repos to their yum.repo dirs in /etc do
that on their own account? And because they know what they do, and maybe
have a look at it after adding it?

And last not least: because nowadays there are too many self-proclaimed
nannies out on the streets anyways - so I'm really happy to not see them
around in Linux land 

Yes we make mistakes. I'll probably make hundreds more of them until
the end of my life. My responsibility. Not Fedora's.

Keep the nannies out. At least keep them very far away from our
computers. Please.

Regards
-- 
Wolfgang Pfeiffer
___
users mailing list -- users@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to users-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

Re: Problems with vlc

[Stephen Morris]

On 16/2/18 6:52 am, Rick Stevens wrote:

On 02/14/2018 01:43 PM, Stephen Morris wrote:

On 14/2/18 10:05 am, Patrick O'Callaghan wrote:

On Wed, 2018-02-14 at 08:08 +1100, Stephen Morris wrote:

So from my perspective the vlc package you had problems with works fine
on my system.

The packages I have installed are:


bash-4.4$ rpm -qa vlc*
vlc-core-3.0.0-25.20180109git0c462fc.fc27.x86_64
vlc-3.0.0-25.20180109git0c462fc.fc27.x86_64

When using Negativo17 I never had a package called vlc, just vlc-core
and vlc-extras. The /usr/bin/vlc binary came from vlc-core. On
switching to RPMfusion I now have a package called vlc. So I wonder if
your installation is in fact from Negativo17.

I am definitely using the negativo17 packages. As a test I uninstalled
the vlc and vlc-core packages via yumex, and issued the vlc command in a
shell which told me it couldn't be found. I then went back into Yumex
and did a search for vlc, in the list of packages returned it said that
the vlc, vlc-core and vlc-extras package were from fedora-multimedia
which is negativo17, it did not provide me with any reference to vlc in
rpmfusion. I then installed vlc, vlc-core and vlc-extras (I didn't have
this one previously), ran vlc from the shell, and it work as I
documented previously. I have also checked on the negativo17 physical
repository and negativo17 does actually provide packages vlc, vlc-core
and vlc-extras. Looking at the file list from vlc and vlc-core, the vlc
package may not need to be installed. The vcl package provides files in
/usr/bin of qvlc and svlc, where the vlc-core package provides files in
/usr/bin of cvlc, nvlc, rvlc, vlc and vlc-wrapper. I haven't yet tried
the vlc functionality after uninstalling all 3 packages and just
installing vlc-core and vlc-extras.

I've also checked the physical rpmfusion repository and their free
repository also has packages vlc, vlc-core and vlc-extras, but they are
named differently to the negativo17 ones so there is no confusion as to
which is which. What I don't know yet is why a vlc search in Yumex
doesn't show me the rpmfusion ones?

I don't use yumex, but dnfdragora displays them--provided the
rpmfusion-free and rpmfusion-free-update repos are enabled.

 Particularly given that dnf info vlc
tells me the installed vlc package is from fedora-multimedia and there
is a vlc package available from rpmfusion-free-updates and there is a
source package available from fedora-multimedia-source, which is what
dnf told before I did the uninstall and re-install.

My packages (as of this morning, using rpmfusion-*):

[root@golem4 ~]# dnf list vlc*
Last metadata expiration check: 0:19:21 ago on Thu 15 Feb 2018 11:22:18
AM PST.
Installed Packages
vlc.x86_64   3.0.0-1.fc27
@rpmfusion-free-updates
vlc-core.x86_64  3.0.0-1.fc27
@rpmfusion-free-updates
vlc-extras.x86_643.0.0-1.fc27
@rpmfusion-free-updates
Available Packages
vlc.i686 3.0.0-1.fc27
rpmfusion-free-updates
vlc-core.i6863.0.0-1.fc27
rpmfusion-free-updates
vlc-devel.i686   3.0.0-1.fc27
rpmfusion-free-updates
vlc-devel.x86_64 3.0.0-1.fc27
rpmfusion-free-updates


Mine is as follows:

dnf list vlc*
Failed to synchronize cache for repo 'fedora-games', disabling.
Last metadata expiration check: 4 days, 21:34:58 ago on Sun 11 Feb 2018 
10:48:39 AEDT.

Installed Packages
vlc.x86_64 1:3.0.0-25.20180109git0c462fc.fc27 @fedora-multimedia
vlc-core.x86_64 1:3.0.0-25.20180109git0c462fc.fc27 @fedora-multimedia
vlc-extras.x86_64 1:3.0.0-25.20180109git0c462fc.fc27 @System
Available Packages
vlc.i686 3.0.0-0.48.git20180109.rc5.fc27 rpmfusion-free-updates
vlc.src 1:3.0.0-25.20180109git0c462fc.fc27 fedora-multimedia-source
vlc-core.i686 3.0.0-0.48.git20180109.rc5.fc27 rpmfusion-free-updates
vlc-debugsource.x86_64 1:3.0.0-25.20180109git0c462fc.fc27 fedora-multimedia
vlc-devel.i686 1:3.0.0-25.20180109git0c462fc.fc27 fedora-multimedia
vlc-devel.x86_64 1:3.0.0-25.20180109git0c462fc.fc27 fedora-multimedia
vlc-plugin-jack.x86_64 1:3.0.0-25.20180109git0c462fc.fc27 fedora-multimedia


This output surprises me. The rpmfusion repositories are enabled, but 
Yumex does not show the rpmfusion vlc versions as being installed even 
after using it to uninstall the fedora-multimedia versions. If I issue 
command vlc in a shell it runs the fedora-multimedia application. If I 
use Yumex to uninstall vlc and vlc-core, then issue the command vlc in a 
shell, it tells me the command doesn't exist. If I then use Yumex to 
install the fedora-multimedia versions again, I can run the command from 
the shell again. My bad, I've just looked at the output again and 
realized it's not telling me that vlc.i686 is installed, it's just 
telling me its available. I don't understand why the output is saying 
vlc-extras was @system installed when all 3 of those vlc packages were 
installed at the same 

Re: Problems with vlc

[Rick Stevens]

On 02/14/2018 01:43 PM, Stephen Morris wrote:
> On 14/2/18 10:05 am, Patrick O'Callaghan wrote:
>> On Wed, 2018-02-14 at 08:08 +1100, Stephen Morris wrote:
>>> So from my perspective the vlc package you had problems with works fine
>>> on my system.
>>>
>>> The packages I have installed are:
>>>
>>>
>>> bash-4.4$ rpm -qa vlc*
>>> vlc-core-3.0.0-25.20180109git0c462fc.fc27.x86_64
>>> vlc-3.0.0-25.20180109git0c462fc.fc27.x86_64
>> When using Negativo17 I never had a package called vlc, just vlc-core
>> and vlc-extras. The /usr/bin/vlc binary came from vlc-core. On
>> switching to RPMfusion I now have a package called vlc. So I wonder if
>> your installation is in fact from Negativo17.
> 
> I am definitely using the negativo17 packages. As a test I uninstalled
> the vlc and vlc-core packages via yumex, and issued the vlc command in a
> shell which told me it couldn't be found. I then went back into Yumex
> and did a search for vlc, in the list of packages returned it said that
> the vlc, vlc-core and vlc-extras package were from fedora-multimedia
> which is negativo17, it did not provide me with any reference to vlc in
> rpmfusion. I then installed vlc, vlc-core and vlc-extras (I didn't have
> this one previously), ran vlc from the shell, and it work as I
> documented previously. I have also checked on the negativo17 physical
> repository and negativo17 does actually provide packages vlc, vlc-core
> and vlc-extras. Looking at the file list from vlc and vlc-core, the vlc
> package may not need to be installed. The vcl package provides files in
> /usr/bin of qvlc and svlc, where the vlc-core package provides files in
> /usr/bin of cvlc, nvlc, rvlc, vlc and vlc-wrapper. I haven't yet tried
> the vlc functionality after uninstalling all 3 packages and just
> installing vlc-core and vlc-extras.
> 
> I've also checked the physical rpmfusion repository and their free
> repository also has packages vlc, vlc-core and vlc-extras, but they are
> named differently to the negativo17 ones so there is no confusion as to
> which is which. What I don't know yet is why a vlc search in Yumex
> doesn't show me the rpmfusion ones?

I don't use yumex, but dnfdragora displays them--provided the
rpmfusion-free and rpmfusion-free-update repos are enabled.
> Particularly given that dnf info vlc
> tells me the installed vlc package is from fedora-multimedia and there
> is a vlc package available from rpmfusion-free-updates and there is a
> source package available from fedora-multimedia-source, which is what
> dnf told before I did the uninstall and re-install.

My packages (as of this morning, using rpmfusion-*):

[root@golem4 ~]# dnf list vlc*
Last metadata expiration check: 0:19:21 ago on Thu 15 Feb 2018 11:22:18
AM PST.
Installed Packages
vlc.x86_64   3.0.0-1.fc27
@rpmfusion-free-updates
vlc-core.x86_64  3.0.0-1.fc27
@rpmfusion-free-updates
vlc-extras.x86_643.0.0-1.fc27
@rpmfusion-free-updates
Available Packages
vlc.i686 3.0.0-1.fc27
rpmfusion-free-updates
vlc-core.i6863.0.0-1.fc27
rpmfusion-free-updates
vlc-devel.i686   3.0.0-1.fc27
rpmfusion-free-updates
vlc-devel.x86_64 3.0.0-1.fc27
rpmfusion-free-updates

YMMV
--
- Rick Stevens, Systems Engineer, AllDigitalri...@alldigital.com -
- AIM/Skype: therps2ICQ: 22643734Yahoo: origrps2 -
--
-   Let us think the unthinkable. Let us do the undoable. Let us -
-   prepare to grapple with the ineffable itself, and see if we may  -
-  not eff it up after all.  -
- -- Douglas Adams   -
--
___
users mailing list -- users@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to users-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

Re: Problems with vlc

[Patrick O'Callaghan]

On Thu, 2018-02-15 at 23:19 +1100, Stephen Morris wrote:
> On 15/2/18 8:59 pm, Patrick O'Callaghan wrote:
> > On Thu, 2018-02-15 at 10:21 +0800, Ed Greshko wrote:
> > > On 02/15/18 10:06, Tim wrote:
> > > > On 02/13/18 20:51, Patrick O'Callaghan wrote:
> > > > > > Sorry for the confusion. The repo name misled me into thinking it
> > > > > > was an official Fedora one.
> > > > 
> > > > Ed Greshko:
> > > > > Understandable.  IMO, they should be discouraged from using the
> > > > > "fedora" name for that very reason.
> > > > 
> > > > I have mixed feelings about that.  I see the confusion it causes, but
> > > > when dealing with other repos, you want to be able to see that you've
> > > > got the right one.
> > > > 
> > > > If /other/ repo sites named their "for Fedora" repos actually including
> > > > the words "for-fedora," it would alleviate both issues.
> > > > 
> > > 
> > > IMO, I feel the problem with using the Fedora name in a repo or site 
> > > makes people
> > > think it is formally affiliated with and endorsed by The Fedora Project.  
> > > Companies
> > > such as Disney, Apple, Samsung, and others go to great lengths to protect 
> > > their
> > > brand.  Why should Fedora be any different?
> > 
> > I agree. I understand why the package is labelled 'fedora' since it's
> > meant for Fedora (and not, say Suse) but I feel it should be qualified
> > by the repo identifier, e.g. negativo17-fedora.
> 
> I'm using the negativo17-fedora.repo that contains definitions for all 
> the negativo17 repositories for fedora. As this is a text file, one 
> could edit the file and change the repository names to use Patrick's 
> suggestion if desired.

True enough.

poc
___
users mailing list -- users@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to users-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

Re: Problems with vlc

[Stephen Morris]

On 15/2/18 8:59 pm, Patrick O'Callaghan wrote:

On Thu, 2018-02-15 at 10:21 +0800, Ed Greshko wrote:

On 02/15/18 10:06, Tim wrote:

On 02/13/18 20:51, Patrick O'Callaghan wrote:

Sorry for the confusion. The repo name misled me into thinking it
was an official Fedora one.

Ed Greshko:

Understandable.  IMO, they should be discouraged from using the
"fedora" name for that very reason.

I have mixed feelings about that.  I see the confusion it causes, but
when dealing with other repos, you want to be able to see that you've
got the right one.

If /other/ repo sites named their "for Fedora" repos actually including
the words "for-fedora," it would alleviate both issues.


IMO, I feel the problem with using the Fedora name in a repo or site makes 
people
think it is formally affiliated with and endorsed by The Fedora Project.  
Companies
such as Disney, Apple, Samsung, and others go to great lengths to protect their
brand.  Why should Fedora be any different?

I agree. I understand why the package is labelled 'fedora' since it's
meant for Fedora (and not, say Suse) but I feel it should be qualified
by the repo identifier, e.g. negativo17-fedora.


I'm using the negativo17-fedora.repo that contains definitions for all 
the negativo17 repositories for fedora. As this is a text file, one 
could edit the file and change the repository names to use Patrick's 
suggestion if desired.



regards,

Steve




poc
___
users mailing list -- users@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to users-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

___
users mailing list -- users@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to users-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

Re: Problems with vlc

[Patrick O'Callaghan]

On Thu, 2018-02-15 at 10:21 +0800, Ed Greshko wrote:
> On 02/15/18 10:06, Tim wrote:
> > On 02/13/18 20:51, Patrick O'Callaghan wrote:
> > > > Sorry for the confusion. The repo name misled me into thinking it
> > > > was an official Fedora one.
> > 
> > Ed Greshko:
> > > Understandable.  IMO, they should be discouraged from using the
> > > "fedora" name for that very reason. 
> > 
> > I have mixed feelings about that.  I see the confusion it causes, but
> > when dealing with other repos, you want to be able to see that you've
> > got the right one.
> > 
> > If /other/ repo sites named their "for Fedora" repos actually including
> > the words "for-fedora," it would alleviate both issues.
> > 
> 
> IMO, I feel the problem with using the Fedora name in a repo or site makes 
> people
> think it is formally affiliated with and endorsed by The Fedora Project.  
> Companies
> such as Disney, Apple, Samsung, and others go to great lengths to protect 
> their
> brand.  Why should Fedora be any different?

I agree. I understand why the package is labelled 'fedora' since it's
meant for Fedora (and not, say Suse) but I feel it should be qualified
by the repo identifier, e.g. negativo17-fedora.

poc
___
users mailing list -- users@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to users-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

Re: Problems with vlc

[Kevin Cummings]

On 02/14/18 15:52, Ed Greshko wrote:
> On 02/15/18 04:24, Kevin Cummings wrote:
>> On 02/13/18 16:59, Ed Greshko wrote:
>>> On 02/14/18 05:23, Stephen Morris wrote:
 I use Negativo17 because in the past I have found that rpmfusion were very 
 tardy
 with their Nvidia binary files in keeping pace with kernel version 
 changes. I have
 all the negativo17 repositories enabled and all the rpmfusion repositories 
 enabled,
 so far without any apparent conflicts, which may just be luck on my part. 
>>>
>>> You know, if you use akmod-nvidia from rpmfusion you don't have to worry 
>>> about a
>>> binary being available in the repo as the binary will be built locally on 
>>> your own
>>> system when a new kernel is installed.
>> Right up until a kernel interface changes and you have to wait for a new
>> nvidia driver to use the new kernel
>>
> Been using rpmfusion for many years now.

Me too.  But I use the kmods that RPMFusion puts out.  They do not very
often lag behind the new kernels, and most of the time they get updated
at the same time.  Furthermore, they don't "break" when a new version of
the driver gets released, because the new kmods get released at the same
time as the new drivers.  It is usually nVidia who lag behind the latest
kernels.  And the RPMFusion people then have to wait for nVidia to fix
it before they can.

> That has *never* happened to me.

It has to me.

> So, if you're talking about a rare occurrence to say why you shouldn't use
> "something" then one best stop using Fedora, Ubuntu, Suse, any flavor of 
> Linux, all
> brands of mobile phones, etc.  They all have had hiccups causing minor 
> inconvenience
> to a segment of their users.

Indeed.  I just find that use of the kmods is better for me.  YMMV

> ___
> users mailing list -- users@lists.fedoraproject.org
> To unsubscribe send an email to users-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
> 

-- 
Kevin J. Cummings
cummi...@kjchome.homeip.net
cummi...@kjc386.framingham.ma.us
kjch...@icloud.com
Registered Linux User #1232 (http://www.linuxcounter.net/)
___
users mailing list -- users@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to users-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

Re: Problems with vlc

[Ed Greshko]

On 02/15/18 10:06, Tim wrote:
> On 02/13/18 20:51, Patrick O'Callaghan wrote:
>>> Sorry for the confusion. The repo name misled me into thinking it
>>> was an official Fedora one.
> Ed Greshko:
>> Understandable.  IMO, they should be discouraged from using the
>> "fedora" name for that very reason. 
> I have mixed feelings about that.  I see the confusion it causes, but
> when dealing with other repos, you want to be able to see that you've
> got the right one.
>
> If /other/ repo sites named their "for Fedora" repos actually including
> the words "for-fedora," it would alleviate both issues.
>
IMO, I feel the problem with using the Fedora name in a repo or site makes 
people
think it is formally affiliated with and endorsed by The Fedora Project.  
Companies
such as Disney, Apple, Samsung, and others go to great lengths to protect their
brand.  Why should Fedora be any different?

-- 
A motto of mine is: When in doubt, try it out



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
___
users mailing list -- users@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to users-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

Re: Problems with vlc

[Tim]

On 02/13/18 20:51, Patrick O'Callaghan wrote:
>> Sorry for the confusion. The repo name misled me into thinking it
>> was an official Fedora one.

Ed Greshko:
> Understandable.  IMO, they should be discouraged from using the
> "fedora" name for that very reason. 

I have mixed feelings about that.  I see the confusion it causes, but
when dealing with other repos, you want to be able to see that you've
got the right one.

If /other/ repo sites named their "for Fedora" repos actually including
the words "for-fedora," it would alleviate both issues.

-- 
[tim@localhost ~]$ uname -rsvp
Linux 4.14.16-200.fc26.x86_64 #1 SMP Wed Jan 31 19:34:52 UTC 2018 x86_64

Boilerplate:  All mail to my mailbox is automatically deleted.
There is no point trying to privately email me, I only get to see
the messages posted to the mailing list.

Lucky for you I typed this, you'd never be able to read my handwriting.
___
users mailing list -- users@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to users-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

Re: Problems with vlc

[Stephen Morris]

On 14/2/18 10:05 am, Patrick O'Callaghan wrote:

On Wed, 2018-02-14 at 08:08 +1100, Stephen Morris wrote:

So from my perspective the vlc package you had problems with works fine
on my system.

The packages I have installed are:


bash-4.4$ rpm -qa vlc*
vlc-core-3.0.0-25.20180109git0c462fc.fc27.x86_64
vlc-3.0.0-25.20180109git0c462fc.fc27.x86_64

When using Negativo17 I never had a package called vlc, just vlc-core
and vlc-extras. The /usr/bin/vlc binary came from vlc-core. On
switching to RPMfusion I now have a package called vlc. So I wonder if
your installation is in fact from Negativo17.


I am definitely using the negativo17 packages. As a test I uninstalled 
the vlc and vlc-core packages via yumex, and issued the vlc command in a 
shell which told me it couldn't be found. I then went back into Yumex 
and did a search for vlc, in the list of packages returned it said that 
the vlc, vlc-core and vlc-extras package were from fedora-multimedia 
which is negativo17, it did not provide me with any reference to vlc in 
rpmfusion. I then installed vlc, vlc-core and vlc-extras (I didn't have 
this one previously), ran vlc from the shell, and it work as I 
documented previously. I have also checked on the negativo17 physical 
repository and negativo17 does actually provide packages vlc, vlc-core 
and vlc-extras. Looking at the file list from vlc and vlc-core, the vlc 
package may not need to be installed. The vcl package provides files in 
/usr/bin of qvlc and svlc, where the vlc-core package provides files in 
/usr/bin of cvlc, nvlc, rvlc, vlc and vlc-wrapper. I haven't yet tried 
the vlc functionality after uninstalling all 3 packages and just 
installing vlc-core and vlc-extras.


I've also checked the physical rpmfusion repository and their free 
repository also has packages vlc, vlc-core and vlc-extras, but they are 
named differently to the negativo17 ones so there is no confusion as to 
which is which. What I don't know yet is why a vlc search in Yumex 
doesn't show me the rpmfusion ones? Particularly given that dnf info vlc 
tells me the installed vlc package is from fedora-multimedia and there 
is a vlc package available from rpmfusion-free-updates and there is a 
source package available from fedora-multimedia-source, which is what 
dnf told before I did the uninstall and re-install.



regards,

Steve




poc
___
users mailing list -- users@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to users-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

___
users mailing list -- users@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to users-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

Re: Problems with vlc

[Stephen Morris]

On 14/2/18 8:59 am, Ed Greshko wrote:

On 02/14/18 05:23, Stephen Morris wrote:

I use Negativo17 because in the past I have found that rpmfusion were very tardy
with their Nvidia binary files in keeping pace with kernel version changes. I 
have
all the negativo17 repositories enabled and all the rpmfusion repositories 
enabled,
so far without any apparent conflicts, which may just be luck on my part.


You know, if you use akmod-nvidia from rpmfusion you don't have to worry about a
binary being available in the repo as the binary will be built locally on your 
own
system when a new kernel is installed.

Simple, easy.  No muss, no fuss.


I am now using the akmod version and the dkms version as backups to the 
binary version, so that if a kernel matching version has not been 
produced then it would be compiled. The issue with the source code path 
with dkms (it don't know if akmod is similar) is that by default dkms 
compiles against the running kernel so unless you have the dkms.conf set 
up correctly it doesn't compile against the new kernel at kernel install 
time, it compiles against the running kernel, and then it does another 
compile at next boot to compile against the running kernel at that 
point. The two main processes I use the dkms with are my wireless 
adapter driver and my mouse driver, both of which come from git, the 
dkms.conf file supplied with the mouse driver from the F27 repository 
supplied by the vendor has the necessary configuration, whereas for the 
wireless driver I have to manually edit the dkms.conf file to specify 
the necessary parameter to make. Both dkms.conf files use different 
methods to achieve the same result.



regards,

Steve




___
users mailing list -- users@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to users-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

___
users mailing list -- users@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to users-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

Re: Problems with vlc

[Ed Greshko]

On 02/15/18 04:24, Kevin Cummings wrote:
> On 02/13/18 16:59, Ed Greshko wrote:
>> On 02/14/18 05:23, Stephen Morris wrote:
>>> I use Negativo17 because in the past I have found that rpmfusion were very 
>>> tardy
>>> with their Nvidia binary files in keeping pace with kernel version changes. 
>>> I have
>>> all the negativo17 repositories enabled and all the rpmfusion repositories 
>>> enabled,
>>> so far without any apparent conflicts, which may just be luck on my part. 
>>
>> You know, if you use akmod-nvidia from rpmfusion you don't have to worry 
>> about a
>> binary being available in the repo as the binary will be built locally on 
>> your own
>> system when a new kernel is installed.
> Right up until a kernel interface changes and you have to wait for a new
> nvidia driver to use the new kernel
>
Been using rpmfusion for many years now.  That has *never* happened to me. 

So, if you're talking about a rare occurrence to say why you shouldn't use
"something" then one best stop using Fedora, Ubuntu, Suse, any flavor of Linux, 
all
brands of mobile phones, etc.  They all have had hiccups causing minor 
inconvenience
to a segment of their users.
 
-- 
A motto of mine is: When in doubt, try it out



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
___
users mailing list -- users@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to users-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

Re: Problems with vlc

[Kevin Cummings]

On 02/13/18 16:59, Ed Greshko wrote:
> On 02/14/18 05:23, Stephen Morris wrote:
>> I use Negativo17 because in the past I have found that rpmfusion were very 
>> tardy
>> with their Nvidia binary files in keeping pace with kernel version changes. 
>> I have
>> all the negativo17 repositories enabled and all the rpmfusion repositories 
>> enabled,
>> so far without any apparent conflicts, which may just be luck on my part. 
> 
> 
> You know, if you use akmod-nvidia from rpmfusion you don't have to worry 
> about a
> binary being available in the repo as the binary will be built locally on 
> your own
> system when a new kernel is installed.

Right up until a kernel interface changes and you have to wait for a new
nvidia driver to use the new kernel

> Simple, easy.  No muss, no fuss.
> 
> 
> 
> ___
> users mailing list -- users@lists.fedoraproject.org
> To unsubscribe send an email to users-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
> 

-- 
Kevin J. Cummings
cummi...@kjchome.homeip.net
cummi...@kjc386.framingham.ma.us
kjch...@icloud.com
Registered Linux User #1232 (http://www.linuxcounter.net/)
___
users mailing list -- users@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to users-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

Re: Problems with vlc

[Patrick O'Callaghan]

On Wed, 2018-02-14 at 08:08 +1100, Stephen Morris wrote:
> So from my perspective the vlc package you had problems with works fine 
> on my system.
> 
> The packages I have installed are:
> 
> 
> bash-4.4$ rpm -qa vlc*
> vlc-core-3.0.0-25.20180109git0c462fc.fc27.x86_64
> vlc-3.0.0-25.20180109git0c462fc.fc27.x86_64

When using Negativo17 I never had a package called vlc, just vlc-core
and vlc-extras. The /usr/bin/vlc binary came from vlc-core. On
switching to RPMfusion I now have a package called vlc. So I wonder if
your installation is in fact from Negativo17.

poc
___
users mailing list -- users@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to users-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

Re: Problems with vlc

[Ed Greshko]

On 02/14/18 05:23, Stephen Morris wrote:
> I use Negativo17 because in the past I have found that rpmfusion were very 
> tardy
> with their Nvidia binary files in keeping pace with kernel version changes. I 
> have
> all the negativo17 repositories enabled and all the rpmfusion repositories 
> enabled,
> so far without any apparent conflicts, which may just be luck on my part. 


You know, if you use akmod-nvidia from rpmfusion you don't have to worry about a
binary being available in the repo as the binary will be built locally on your 
own
system when a new kernel is installed.

Simple, easy.  No muss, no fuss.

-- 
A motto of mine is: When in doubt, try it out



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
___
users mailing list -- users@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to users-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

Re: Problems with vlc

[Stephen Morris]

On 14/2/18 7:55 am, Joe Zeff wrote:

On 02/13/2018 12:44 PM, Stephen Morris wrote:
Hi Ed, just my 2 cents worth, I have the same setup as Patrick, and 
like Patrick I use the negativo17 repositories for Nvidia (I found 
rpmfusion to be not reliable enough with their binary files for 
nvidia), but I'm also using their repositories for Handbrake and 
Steam. I didn't have any issues with the repository name of 
Fedora-Multimedia, to me it was obvious what it was. Negativo17 
supports multiple distributions and to me it makes perfect sense to 
name the repositories for the distribution they are for, the only 
source of potential confusion could be where he uses the same 
repository name for different versions of the same distribution.


Two comments.  First, I've never used negativo17, but I've never heard 
anything bad about it.  Second, my understanding is that you can 
either use it or rpmfusion but not both, to prevent conflicts.  I've 
always used rpmfusion, which is why I've never tried negativo17.


I use Negativo17 because in the past I have found that rpmfusion were 
very tardy with their Nvidia binary files in keeping pace with kernel 
version changes. I have all the negativo17 repositories enabled and all 
the rpmfusion repositories enabled, so far without any apparent 
conflicts, which may just be luck on my part.



regards,

Steve



___
users mailing list -- users@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to users-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

___
users mailing list -- users@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to users-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

Re: Problems with vlc

[Stephen Morris]

On 13/2/18 11:51 pm, Patrick O'Callaghan wrote:

On Tue, 2018-02-13 at 13:36 +0100, Jon Ingason wrote:

Den 2018-02-13 kl. 13:14, skrev Ed Greshko:

On 02/13/18 19:31, Patrick O'Callaghan wrote:

  3.0.0-rc5-0-gf53236af09)

Oh, you mention "fedora-multimedia".  Is that an actual fedora sponsored repo 
or a
3rd party repo like rpmfusion?  I ask since I've not heard of that one.


It is netativo17 repo found on https://negativo17.org/

Aha! That must be it. I'd forgotten I had that repo installed (I needed
it for NVidia drivers). I've uninstalled that vlc, disabled Negativo17
and reinstalled vlc from RPMfusion. It's working now.


Hi Patrick, I am using vlc as well and if I understand the rpm -qa 
output correctly, I am using the version from Fedora Multimedia as you 
were. When I run vlc from the console it announces itself as VLC media 
player 3.0.0-rc6 Vetinari (revision 3.0.0-rc5-7-g0c462fc53e), then it 
displays the following output:


[5608e0c10410] main libvlc: Running vlc with the default interface. 
Use 'cvlc' to use vlc without interface.

[5608e0c1f730] main playlist: playlist is empty

Having displayed the above messages, because it was launched without any 
parameters, it launched the gui interface, where I was then able to 
continue playing an mp4 video from where I last left off. After 
launching the gui and playing the video it displayed the following:



[7f6fa4001f60] egl_x11 gl error: cannot select OpenGL API
[7f6faf056f70] avcodec decoder: Using NVIDIA VDPAU Driver Shared 
Library  390.25  Wed Jan 24 19:28:27 PST 2018 for hardware decoding

QObject::~QObject: Timers cannot be stopped from another thread

So from my perspective the vlc package you had problems with works fine 
on my system.


The packages I have installed are:


bash-4.4$ rpm -qa vlc*
vlc-core-3.0.0-25.20180109git0c462fc.fc27.x86_64
vlc-3.0.0-25.20180109git0c462fc.fc27.x86_64
bash-4.4$ rpm -qa gstreamer*
gstreamer1-1.12.4-1.fc27.x86_64
gstreamer-plugins-bad-free-0.10.23-41.fc27.x86_64
gstreamer1-plugins-good-1.12.4-1.fc27.x86_64
gstreamer1-plugins-bad-1.12.4-2.fc27.x86_64
gstreamer1-plugins-base-tools-1.12.4-1.fc27.x86_64
gstreamer-plugins-base-tools-0.10.36-18.fc27.x86_64
gstreamer-tools-0.10.36-18.fc27.x86_64
gstreamer-plugins-good-0.10.31-20.fc27.x86_64
gstreamer1-libav-1.12.4-1.fc27.x86_64
gstreamer1-plugins-base-1.12.4-1.fc27.x86_64
gstreamer-0.10.36-18.fc27.x86_64
gstreamer1-plugins-ugly-1.12.4-1.fc27.x86_64
gstreamer1-1.12.4-1.fc27.i686
gstreamer-plugins-base-0.10.36-18.fc27.x86_64


regards,

Steve




Sorry for the confusion. The repo name misled me into thinking it was
an official Fedora one.

poc
___
users mailing list -- users@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to users-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

___
users mailing list -- users@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to users-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

Re: Problems with vlc

[Joe Zeff]

On 02/13/2018 12:44 PM, Stephen Morris wrote:
Hi Ed, just my 2 cents worth, I have the same setup as Patrick, and like 
Patrick I use the negativo17 repositories for Nvidia (I found rpmfusion 
to be not reliable enough with their binary files for nvidia), but I'm 
also using their repositories for Handbrake and Steam. I didn't have any 
issues with the repository name of Fedora-Multimedia, to me it was 
obvious what it was. Negativo17 supports multiple distributions and to 
me it makes perfect sense to name the repositories for the distribution 
they are for, the only source of potential confusion could be where he 
uses the same repository name for different versions of the same 
distribution.


Two comments.  First, I've never used negativo17, but I've never heard 
anything bad about it.  Second, my understanding is that you can either 
use it or rpmfusion but not both, to prevent conflicts.  I've always 
used rpmfusion, which is why I've never tried negativo17.

___
users mailing list -- users@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to users-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

Re: Problems with vlc

[Stephen Morris]

On 14/2/18 12:34 am, Ed Greshko wrote:

On 02/13/18 20:51, Patrick O'Callaghan wrote:

Sorry for the confusion. The repo name misled me into thinking it was
an official Fedora one.


Understandable.  IMO, they should be discouraged from using the "fedora" name 
for
that very reason.


Hi Ed, just my 2 cents worth, I have the same setup as Patrick, and like 
Patrick I use the negativo17 repositories for Nvidia (I found rpmfusion 
to be not reliable enough with their binary files for nvidia), but I'm 
also using their repositories for Handbrake and Steam. I didn't have any 
issues with the repository name of Fedora-Multimedia, to me it was 
obvious what it was. Negativo17 supports multiple distributions and to 
me it makes perfect sense to name the repositories for the distribution 
they are for, the only source of potential confusion could be where he 
uses the same repository name for different versions of the same 
distribution.


This is just my opinion and other people may have a completely different 
view.



regards,

Steve




___
users mailing list -- users@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to users-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

___
users mailing list -- users@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to users-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

Re: Problems with vlc

[Ed Greshko]

On 02/13/18 20:51, Patrick O'Callaghan wrote:
> Sorry for the confusion. The repo name misled me into thinking it was
> an official Fedora one.


Understandable.  IMO, they should be discouraged from using the "fedora" name 
for
that very reason. 

-- 
A motto of mine is: When in doubt, try it out



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
___
users mailing list -- users@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to users-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

Re: Problems with vlc

[Patrick O'Callaghan]

On Tue, 2018-02-13 at 13:36 +0100, Jon Ingason wrote:
> Den 2018-02-13 kl. 13:14, skrev Ed Greshko:
> > On 02/13/18 19:31, Patrick O'Callaghan wrote:
> 
>  3.0.0-rc5-0-gf53236af09)
> > 
> > Oh, you mention "fedora-multimedia".  Is that an actual fedora sponsored 
> > repo or a
> > 3rd party repo like rpmfusion?  I ask since I've not heard of that one.
> > 
> 
> It is netativo17 repo found on https://negativo17.org/

Aha! That must be it. I'd forgotten I had that repo installed (I needed
it for NVidia drivers). I've uninstalled that vlc, disabled Negativo17
and reinstalled vlc from RPMfusion. It's working now.

Sorry for the confusion. The repo name misled me into thinking it was
an official Fedora one.

poc
___
users mailing list -- users@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to users-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

Re: Problems with vlc

[Jon Ingason]

Den 2018-02-13 kl. 13:14, skrev Ed Greshko:
> On 02/13/18 19:31, Patrick O'Callaghan wrote:
 3.0.0-rc5-0-gf53236af09)
> 
> Oh, you mention "fedora-multimedia".  Is that an actual fedora sponsored repo 
> or a
> 3rd party repo like rpmfusion?  I ask since I've not heard of that one.
> 

It is netativo17 repo found on https://negativo17.org/

> ___
> users mailing list -- users@lists.fedoraproject.org
> To unsubscribe send an email to users-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
> 


-- 
Regards

Jon Ingason
___
users mailing list -- users@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to users-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

Re: Problems with vlc

[Ed Greshko]

On 02/13/18 19:31, Patrick O'Callaghan wrote:
> On Tue, 2018-02-13 at 08:10 +0800, Ed Greshko wrote:
>> On 02/13/18 07:58, Patrick O'Callaghan wrote:
>>> Some time in recent weeks vlc stopped working for me, i.e. it will no
>>> longer play .avi, .mp4 or .mkv files but just lists a continuous stream
>>> of errors to the console (see below). I'm currently on:
>>>
>>> $ rpm -qa vlc\*
>>> vlc-extras-3.0.0-25.20180109git0c462fc.fc27.x86_64
>>> vlc-core-3.0.0-25.20180109git0c462fc.fc27.x86_64
>> I have
>>
>> vlc-core-3.0.0-0.48.git20180109.rc5.fc27.x86_64
>> vlc-3.0.0-0.48.git20180109.rc5.fc27.x86_64
>>
>> Both from rpmfusion.   No problems to play any video...
> Interesting. My rpms are from fedora-multimedia, and I note that the
> names are slightly different (vlc-core and vlc-extras rather than vlc
> and vlc-core). Since I have RPMfusion (free and nonfree) enabled I'm
> guessing this is correct, as there doesn't seem to be a way to force
> dnf to use the RPMfusion one (other than disabling the official repos
> of course).

I did not have the "extras" installed from rpmfusion.  I have now.  And now I 
have.

vlc-core-3.0.0-0.48.git20180109.rc5.fc27.x86_64
vlc-extras-3.0.0-0.48.git20180109.rc5.fc27.x86_64
vlc-3.0.0-0.48.git20180109.rc5.fc27.x86_64
> Aside from that, if I run vlc with no arguments, it does start and I
> can then view a video. So it looks like there's a change of behaviour
> compared to the previous version where I could simply type 'vlc movie'
> and it would run. If that's intentional, then it's a feature and not a
> bug, but the error message(s) leave a *lot* to be desired. Maybe time
> for a BZ report.
>

I can either run using a file name from the command line or select a file after
calling vlc without a file name.

Another difference is when you run from the command line you get...

VLC media player 3.0.0-rc6 Vetinari (revision 3.0.0-rc5-7-g0c462fc53e)
while I get
VLC media player 3.0.0-rc5 Vetinari (revision 3.0.0-rc5-0-gf53236af09)

Oh, you mention "fedora-multimedia".  Is that an actual fedora sponsored repo 
or a
3rd party repo like rpmfusion?  I ask since I've not heard of that one.

-- 
A motto of mine is: When in doubt, try it out



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
___
users mailing list -- users@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to users-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

Re: Problems with vlc

[Patrick O'Callaghan]

On Tue, 2018-02-13 at 08:10 +0800, Ed Greshko wrote:
> On 02/13/18 07:58, Patrick O'Callaghan wrote:
> > Some time in recent weeks vlc stopped working for me, i.e. it will no
> > longer play .avi, .mp4 or .mkv files but just lists a continuous stream
> > of errors to the console (see below). I'm currently on:
> >
> > $ rpm -qa vlc\*
> > vlc-extras-3.0.0-25.20180109git0c462fc.fc27.x86_64
> > vlc-core-3.0.0-25.20180109git0c462fc.fc27.x86_64
> 
> I have
> 
> vlc-core-3.0.0-0.48.git20180109.rc5.fc27.x86_64
> vlc-3.0.0-0.48.git20180109.rc5.fc27.x86_64
> 
> Both from rpmfusion.   No problems to play any video...

Interesting. My rpms are from fedora-multimedia, and I note that the
names are slightly different (vlc-core and vlc-extras rather than vlc
and vlc-core). Since I have RPMfusion (free and nonfree) enabled I'm
guessing this is correct, as there doesn't seem to be a way to force
dnf to use the RPMfusion one (other than disabling the official repos
of course).

Aside from that, if I run vlc with no arguments, it does start and I
can then view a video. So it looks like there's a change of behaviour
compared to the previous version where I could simply type 'vlc movie'
and it would run. If that's intentional, then it's a feature and not a
bug, but the error message(s) leave a *lot* to be desired. Maybe time
for a BZ report.

poc
___
users mailing list -- users@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to users-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

Re: Problems with vlc

[Ed Greshko]

On 02/13/18 07:58, Patrick O'Callaghan wrote:
> Some time in recent weeks vlc stopped working for me, i.e. it will no
> longer play .avi, .mp4 or .mkv files but just lists a continuous stream
> of errors to the console (see below). I'm currently on:
>
> $ rpm -qa vlc\*
> vlc-extras-3.0.0-25.20180109git0c462fc.fc27.x86_64
> vlc-core-3.0.0-25.20180109git0c462fc.fc27.x86_64

I have

vlc-core-3.0.0-0.48.git20180109.rc5.fc27.x86_64
vlc-3.0.0-0.48.git20180109.rc5.fc27.x86_64

Both from rpmfusion.   No problems to play any video...


>
> but I'm pretty sure the problem started before the recent release of
> VLC 3. This is a typical slice of output:
>
> $ vlc foo.avi
> VLC media player 3.0.0-rc6 Vetinari (revision 3.0.0-rc5-7-g0c462fc53e)
> [559d9bd7d410] main libvlc: Running vlc with the default interface. Use 
> 'cvlc' to use vlc without interface.
> [559d9be4a960] [cli] lua interface: Listening on host "*console".
> VLC media player 3.0.0-rc6 Vetinari
> Command Line Interface initialized. Type `help' for help.
>> [559d9be30ae0] main audio output error: too low audio sample frequency 
>> (0)
> [7eff94c1d0d0] main decoder error: failed to create audio output
> [559d9be30ae0] main audio output error: Can't convert non linear input
> [7effb80012e0] main audio filter error: cannot add user audio filter 
> "scaletempo" (skipped)
> [559d9be30ae0] main audio output error: Can't convert non linear input
> [559d9be30ae0] main audio output error: cannot setup filtering pipeline
> [7eff94c1d0d0] main decoder error: failed to create audio output
> [7eff84001e30] main video output error: video output creation failed
> [7eff94c07150] main decoder error: failed to create video output
> ... and so ad infinitum.

Maybe bring up the GUI and check your "Audio" and "Video" settings?   I have 
mine set
to "Automatic" and I know I had troubles with some settings when I played with 
them a
while back.

>
> Essentially the same thing happens with every video file I try, even
> though the same files *do* play correctly with the default KDE and
> Gnome video tools.
>
> It's possible that some codec is missing, but the errors don't seem to
> point to that. In any case these are the ones I have:
>
> $ rpm -qa gstreamer\*
> gstreamer-plugins-base-0.10.36-18.fc27.x86_64
> gstreamermm-1.4.3-1.fc25.x86_64
> gstreamer-0.10.36-18.fc27.x86_64
> gstreamer1-vaapi-1.12.4-1.fc27.x86_64
> gstreamer1-plugins-bad-1.12.4-2.fc27.x86_64
> gstreamer1-1.12.4-1.fc27.i686
> gstreamer1-plugins-base-1.12.4-1.fc27.x86_64
> gstreamer1-plugins-good-1.12.4-1.fc27.x86_64
> gstreamer1-libav-1.12.4-1.fc27.x86_64
> gstreamer1-plugins-base-1.12.4-1.fc27.i686
> gstreamer-plugins-bad-nonfree-0.10.23-5.fc27.x86_64
> gstreamer1-plugins-ugly-1.12.4-1.fc27.x86_64
> gstreamer-tools-0.10.36-18.fc27.x86_64
> gstreamer1-1.12.4-1.fc27.x86_64
>
> I'd be interested to hear opinions on what's going on. VLC used to work
> perfectly for me, certainly on F26 and (I believe) on F27 though I
> can't swear to it. Turning SElinux off makes no difference.

FWIW

gstreamer-plugins-base-0.10.36-18.fc27.x86_64
gstreamer1-plugins-bad-freeworld-1.12.4-1.fc27.x86_64
gstreamer1-plugins-base-1.12.4-1.fc27.x86_64
gstreamer-plugins-bad-0.10.23-9.fc27.x86_64
gstreamer-plugins-bad-nonfree-0.10.23-5.fc27.x86_64
gstreamer1-plugins-ugly-1.12.4-3.fc27.x86_64
gstreamer-0.10.36-18.fc27.x86_64
gstreamer-plugins-ugly-0.10.19-23.fc27.x86_64
gstreamer1-libav-1.12.4-1.fc27.x86_64
gstreamer-tools-0.10.36-18.fc27.x86_64
gstreamer-ffmpeg-0.10.13-18.fc27.x86_64
gstreamer1-plugins-bad-free-gtk-1.12.4-1.fc27.x86_64
gstreamer1-plugins-ugly-free-1.12.4-2.fc27.x86_64
gstreamer1-plugins-good-1.12.4-1.fc27.x86_64
gstreamer-plugins-bad-free-0.10.23-41.fc27.x86_64
gstreamer1-plugins-bad-free-1.12.4-1.fc27.x86_64
gstreamer1-1.12.4-1.fc27.x86_64



-- 
A motto of mine is: When in doubt, try it out



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
___
users mailing list -- users@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to users-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org