On Qua, 2013-09-18 at 22:53 +1000, David Timms wrote:
On 18/09/13 17:35, Ankur Sinha wrote:
> On Wed, 2013-09-18 at 15:32 +1000, Ankur Sinha wrote: It'll need a
> review though. Should I file a bug and add these as attachments?
Check for an existing 'upgrade the package/broken dependency/ffmpeg
/fail to build from source etc' bug first, and if it doesn't already
exist, you can create a new bug.
Do not attach SRPM to the bug. Attach a diff -u from the original spec
to the upgraded spec file. Then the package maintainer can more easily
review the patch, apply the patch and so forth.
If this a package that you would like to help maintain going forward,
and you are already a Fedora packager, you can request to co-maintain
the package. You would then work with the existing maintainer to
decide who has time to look at bugs/upgrades etc..
You mention a successful build. Have you been able to test if the
build actually runs / works etc ?
we need compile new gpac 0.5.0 package against new ffmpeg , but doesn't
build due a problem in a define [1] that I don't understand if a gcc
incompatibility or what .
After you can rebuild x264, and after that all dependencies , If you
build a koji server and put there sources with cvstogit of Ken Dreyer ,
I could try help you ...
[1] my stupid fix.patch
--- gpac/src/utils/downloader.c.orig 2013-09-02 01:41:55.868809230
+0100
+++ gpac/src/utils/downloader.c 2013-09-02 01:42:19.945048582 +0100
@@ -55,7 +55,7 @@
#define SESSION_RETRY_COUNT 20
-#define GF_DOWNLOAD_AGENT_NAME "GPAC/" GPAC_FULL_VERSION
+#define GF_DOWNLOAD_AGENT_NAME "GPAC"
//let's be agressive with socket buffer size
#define GF_DOWNLOAD_BUFFER_SIZE 131072
#define GF_WAIT_REPLY_SLEEP 20
--
Sérgio M. B.