Thorsten Leemhuis wrote :
> > I was wondering about providing an additionnal ISO media [...]
> Yeah, maybe sooner or later -- but I suppose we need to get rpmfusion
> running properly first, so this is IMHO a task for F9 and later.
Yeah, we can work on that once we actually have some packages :-) But
the idea of a disc of additional packages vs. a complete Fedora respin
seems like the right solution for me (like I already wrote ;-)).
Clean custom Red Hat Linux rpm packages : http://freshrpms.net/
Fedora release 7 (Moonshine) - Linux kernel 184.108.40.206-81.fc7
Load : 0.30 0.30 0.27
On 09.10.2007 13:19, Matthias Saou wrote:
> Following the last discussion, here's what has just been done :
> rpmfusion-commits RPM Fusion commits list
> rpmfusion-developers RPM Fusion developers discussion list
> rpmfusion-users RPM Fusion users discussion list
As Bob announced some weeks ago on repo-merge-discussion already -- some
wok is planed for the server which is hosting
repo-merge-discussion(a)fedoraunity.org and it would be easier to not move
the list to the new server.
That work is scheduled for next Monday. So I suggest we fully move to
the new list (e.g. rpmfusion-developers) immediately. To realize that I
suggest we invite all subscribers from the current list to the new one
that haven't subscribed there by Sunday. Then send a final "This list is
EOL mail" to repo-merge-discussion and disallow posting. Until then just
CC both lists.
What are your comments, ideas or opinions about packaging kernel
modules? Fedora has technically banned them AFAIK, but that won't go
well for the proprietary drivers... Should we have both kmod and dkms
available, or maybe something else?
I worked a bit on comps.xml files for rpmfusion. As CVS is not yet
available it put the current files as text in the wiki:
Sorry, that list contains only livna packages up to now, as it's based
on one a comps.xml from livna :-/. We over the next weeks should add
all the other rpmfusion packages.
The current files likely still contain some bugs here and there; some
packages might be in the wrong category as well. Thus please check if I
sorted your packages correctly and adjust everything as needed. If
needed also feel free to add new categories, if there are enough
packages of a kind to warrant a dedicated category.
2007/10/12, KH KH <kwizart(a)gmail.com>:
> 2007/10/11, Thorsten Leemhuis <fedora(a)leemhuis.info>:
> > On 11.10.2007 17:50, David Juran wrote:
> > > On Wed, 2007-10-10 at 07:04 +0200, Thorsten Leemhuis wrote:
> > >
> > >>> If this works, and Matthias agrees on adding theses patches, maybe
> > >>> could consider adding libmpeg3 to the new repository (or livna
> > >>> devel...)
> > >> Putting it in livna devel might be nice. If someone wants to do that
> > >> me know and I'll create the module in svn.
> > > Matthias, you seem to be marked down as the one that made the merge
> > > rpmfusion. Would you care to submit libmpeg3 to livna as well?
> > I think it would be easier if one of the existing livna maintainers
> > takes care of that -- the overhead for creating a account for thias,
> > importing a key and understanding svn is likely not worth the trouble.
> > So is someone points me to a merged SRPM I can just import it myself.
> here you have:
> This is the new "merged" one.. As i've said, libmpeg3 was marked as
> merged because it was only provided with freshrpms... but as I was
> working on gimp-gap that use it, i've made a look...
> I have now some time to check for a patch for transcode..., so I've had a
> see: http://kwizart.free.fr/fedora/patches/transcode-shared_libmpeg3.patch
This patch is now merged and will be available with 1.0.5rc2 in few days...
Nicolas (kwizart )
Kevin setup CVS (¹). It's mostly ready but not usable yet as it needs to
be tied into the FAS, on which thias had been working on iirc.
But there is one thing package maintainers can do already *now*: prepare
the CVS branch requests for your packages. We'll use the
Fedora-old-style format that is explained at
Put your request on http://rpmfusion.org/BranchRequests please. Once the
CVS is finally ready we can just work through the queue and finally
start -- that saves a bit of time.
Please make sure you put your packages in the proper section -- e.g.
software that is open source software according to the Fedora guidelines
in the "free" section and everything else in the "nonfree" section.
(¹) -- many thx kevin!
I am currently comaintaining these with XulChris @ dribble. Now that we
have some basic infrastructure for rpmfusion, I wonder where should the
packages go: free or non-free? The license  is basically BSD +
commercial usage ban, so IMO this qualifies these emulators as
non-free-as-in-speech. Any other opinions?
I'm not really interest in mythtv (¹), but it seems some people would
like to see mythtv in rpmfusion -- I know from at least two people, but
I suspect there are more.
Thus a bit of coordinations might be nice -- otherwise we might run into
a situation where multiple people waste time and energy to prepare a
package for review in parallel.
One package I know of besides the one from Axel in atrpms is
Will Tatam according to http://rpmfusion.org/WillTatam also seem to be
interested in maintaining mythtv for rpmfusion.
Are there more people that have mythtv on the todo-list? If yes: might
be a good idea if you guys coordinate your efforts...
(¹) -- and I care more to get rpmfusion running first before we work on
new packages, but other people have different priorities, so discussing
thus now might be wise
On Thursday, 11 October 2007 at 21:47, Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski wrote:
> We could build LGPL'd FFmpeg and then it could be linked against faad2-2.5,
> but some parts of FFmpeg are GPL and thus would not be compiled.
I forgot that FFmpeg can dlopen() libfaad, which would solve this issue.
I'll look into it too.
Fedora contributor http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/DominikMierzejewski
Livna contributor http://rpm.livna.org MPlayer developer http://mplayerhq.hu
-- Delenn to Lennier in Babylon 5:"Confessions and Lamentations"