[Bug 1030] Review request: xbmc - Media center

[RPM Fusion Bugzilla]

http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1030





--- Comment #47 from rc040203 at freenet.de  2010-01-21 11:04:19 ---
(In reply to comment #46)
> (In reply to comment #45)
> > (In reply to comment #42)
> > 
> > 
> > > I added next 3 patches to trac:  http://xbmc.org/trac/ticket/8590
> > Thanks.
> > 
> > >  Patch8: xbmc-9.11-spyce.diff
> > This fixes python-2.6 syntax errors (the syntax of the sources xbmc has merged
> > into their source-tree is invalid)
> 
> OK, is it fixed in trunk?
Last time I checked, it wasn't fixed - IIRC, it had been reported before and
similar patches be proposed before.

However, spyce, as many other parts in xbmc, actually is a standalone project
with a (seemingly dead) upstream of its own (http://spyce.sourceforge.net).

> There are plans to move to libprojectM 2.0.1 in trunk, I think, but I don't
> think they have as yet:
> 
> http://xbmc.org/trac/ticket/8277
> 
> and ultimately we should be compiling against the external version:
Yep. I already had considered to propose a projectM1/compat-projectM1 package
in fedora, but abandoned this plan ;)

> http://xbmc.org/trac/ticket/8408
> 
> so is it still worth submitting this patch upstream??
I don't know - If can easily be realized, then why not, if not ... no biggy,
IMO.

> > >  Patch11: xbmc-9.11-changeset-26191.diff
> 
> OK, but the next 10.x version will presumably be from trunk, so I don't know if
> there is a point in resubmitting it as a trac ticket upstream, they'd probably
> just close as being fixed in trunk.  I don't think xbmc upstream make point
> releases based on the branches AFAIK, except for the "Live" version, and in
> this case, we are effectively "Live"
Well, ... I think xbmc needs to reconsider their release procedures, but
provided what I am observing in trunk, I would expect the worst (e.g. AFAICT,
they recently added mingw32 binaries, ...)


> > > This fixes problems with web server segfaulting on x86_64, I submitted 
> > > http://xbmc.org/trac/ticket/8591
> > >  Patch12: xbmc-9.11-GoAhead.diff
> 
> This was submitted and they immediately closed it, 

Ah, OK ...

> apparently goahead is about
> to be replaced:  http://xbmc.org/trac/ticket/8591#comment:1
Ah, ... I noticed somebody recently pointed out to upstream xbmc that GoAhead's
license is quite problematic ...

> Perhaps you  could just make the modifications relative to my last (-8) spec
> file, update the changelog and then attach it (and any new patches) right to
> this bug.
That's what I am already trying ... but working on this package in my spare
time, I resync'ing occassionally is tedious.

> Also: are you willing to actually review this?
Yes, I would, ... but we aren't there yet.

Current showstopper: RPM_OPT_FLAGS (This one topic, I am trying to address.
So far I've caught much of it, but not yet all - It is the patch which collides
with your patches :) ).

Also: Has anybody tried to build this beast on ppc-*'s? I would not expect it
to build at all.

>  Or is there somebody who is,
> since nobody has yet volunteered.
I intentionally did not assign this BZ to me to leave room to others to step
in.


-- 
Configure bugmail: http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are the assignee for the bug.