7:30 p.m.
It looks like we're two releases behind on x265. Any reason not to update?
It would be a shame for F23 to be stuck at 1.6 for it's lifetime. Only a
handful of rebuilds would be needed.
Thanks,
Richard
9:38 p.m.
2015-11-09 20:30 GMT+01:00 Richard Shaw <hobbes1069(a)gmail.com>:
It looks like we're two releases behind on x265. Any reason not
to update?
It would be a shame for F23 to be stuck at 1.6 for it's lifetime. Only a
handful of rebuilds would be needed.
Thanks,
Richard
Sure, Can I remind you the basics of SONAME announcement ? such as
reporting which packages would be affected in f23 by this change ?
Thx
--
-
Nicolas (kwizart)
9:40 p.m.
On Mon, Nov 9, 2015 at 3:38 PM, Nicolas Chauvet <kwizart(a)gmail.com> wrote:
Sure, Can I remind you the basics of SONAME announcement ? such as
reporting which packages would be affected in f23 by this change ?
I was just curious if there was any reason not to update but here's the
affected packages.
This is on F21, I assume other branches would be the same:
# repoquery --whatrequires "libx265.so.51()(64bit)" --source
avidemux-2.6.10-1.fc21.src.rpm
avidemux-2.6.10-1.fc21.src.rpm
ffmpeg-2.4.11-1.fc21.src.rpm
vlc-2.2.2-0.1.fc21.src.rpm
x265-1.6-1.fc21.src.rpm
Thanks,
Richard
10:26 p.m.
2015-11-09 22:40 GMT+01:00 Richard Shaw <hobbes1069(a)gmail.com>:
On Mon, Nov 9, 2015 at 3:38 PM, Nicolas Chauvet
<kwizart(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> Sure, Can I remind you the basics of SONAME announcement ? such as
> reporting which packages would be affected in f23 by this change ?
>
I was just curious if there was any reason not to update but here's the
affected packages.
This is on F21, I assume other branches would be the same:
# repoquery --whatrequires "libx265.so.51()(64bit)" --source
avidemux-2.6.10-1.fc21.src.rpm
avidemux-2.6.10-1.fc21.src.rpm
ffmpeg-2.4.11-1.fc21.src.rpm
vlc-2.2.2-0.1.fc21.src.rpm
x265-1.6-1.fc21.src.rpm
OK, then can you test the changes to verify that's it's only a matter to
rebuilt,
then commit the x265 update to the git preview and notify.
I will take care of what's next.
Thx
--
-
Nicolas (kwizart)
10:27 p.m.
I did a local mock build to make sure there wasn't any issues with the
update.
vlc failed due to missing libmusicbrainz-devel (I was using
fedora-rawhide-x86_64-rpmfusion_free chroot) but both ffmpeg and avidemux
rebuilt without issue.
Thanks,
Richard
11:50 p.m.
Hi,
On Monday, 09 November 2015 at 23:26, Nicolas Chauvet wrote:
2015-11-09 22:40 GMT+01:00 Richard Shaw
<hobbes1069(a)gmail.com>:
> On Mon, Nov 9, 2015 at 3:38 PM, Nicolas Chauvet <kwizart(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Sure, Can I remind you the basics of SONAME announcement ? such as
>> reporting which packages would be affected in f23 by this change ?
>>
>
> I was just curious if there was any reason not to update but here's the
> affected packages.
>
> This is on F21, I assume other branches would be the same:
>
> # repoquery --whatrequires "libx265.so.51()(64bit)" --source
> avidemux-2.6.10-1.fc21.src.rpm
> avidemux-2.6.10-1.fc21.src.rpm
> ffmpeg-2.4.11-1.fc21.src.rpm
> vlc-2.2.2-0.1.fc21.src.rpm
> x265-1.6-1.fc21.src.rpm
>
OK, then can you test the changes to verify that's it's only a matter to
rebuilt,
then commit the x265 update to the git preview and notify.
I will take care of what's next.
x265 is already at version 1.8 in git...
Regards,
Dominik
--
Fedora http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Rathann
RPMFusion http://rpmfusion.org
"Faith manages."
-- Delenn to Lennier in Babylon 5:"Confessions and Lamentations"
2:02 p.m.
On Tue, Nov 10, 2015 at 5:50 PM, Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski <
dominik(a)greysector.net> wrote:
x265 is already at version 1.8 in git...
Ok, then let's built it. I need avidemux rebuilt anyway for a packaging
oops so might as well take care of both at the same time.
Thanks,
Richard
10:18 p.m.
On Qua, 2015-11-11 at 08:02 -0600, Richard Shaw wrote:
On Tue, Nov 10, 2015 at 5:50 PM, Dominik 'Rathann'
Mierzejewski <domi
nik(a)greysector.net> wrote:
> x265 is already at version 1.8 in git...
Ok, then let's built it. I need avidemux rebuilt anyway for a
packaging oops so might as well take care of both at the same time.
Has already been built !
(with dnf-1.1.3 :) )
dnf repoquery x265-1.8 avidemux ffmpeg vlc --qf "%{BUILDTIME} %{name}-%{version} \t
%{repoid}"| sort -nr
2015-11-05 10:41 avidemux-2.6.10 rpmfusion-free-updates-testing
2015-10-27 18:07 vlc-2.2.2 rpmfusion-free-updates-testing
2015-10-26 10:38 ffmpeg-2.8.1 rpmfusion-free-updates-testing
2015-10-26 09:18 x265-1.8 rpmfusion-free-updates-testing
(...)
Thanks,
Richard
--
Sérgio M. B.
4:38 p.m.
On Qua, 2015-11-11 at 08:02 -0600, Richard Shaw wrote:
On Tue, Nov 10, 2015 at 5:50 PM, Dominik 'Rathann'
Mierzejewski <domi
nik(a)greysector.net> wrote:
> x265 is already at version 1.8 in git...
Ok, then let's built it. I need avidemux rebuilt anyway for a
packaging oops so might as well take care of both at the same time.
You still need rebuild avidemux ? just for F23 ?
Thanks,
Richard
--
Sérgio M. B.
4:48 p.m.
2015-11-14 17:38 GMT+01:00 Sérgio Basto <sergio(a)serjux.com>:
On Qua, 2015-11-11 at 08:02 -0600, Richard Shaw wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 10, 2015 at 5:50 PM, Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski <domi
> nik(a)greysector.net> wrote:
> > x265 is already at version 1.8 in git...
> Ok, then let's built it. I need avidemux rebuilt anyway for a
> packaging oops so might as well take care of both at the same time.
You still need rebuild avidemux ? just for F23 ?
This is already handled, we've used the right x265 from the beginning so
any others f23 build are using the right x265
--
-
Nicolas (kwizart)
3092
days inactive
3097
days old
rpmfusion-developers@lists.rpmfusion.org
9 comments
4 participants
participants (4)
-
Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski -
Nicolas Chauvet -
Richard Shaw -
Sérgio Basto