http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=118 Hans de Goede <j.w.r.degoede(a)hhs.nl&gt; changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- AssignedTo|rpmfusion-package- |j.w.r.degoede(a)hhs.nl |review(a)rpmfusion.org | Status|ASSIGNED |NEW -- 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.

http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=118 --- Comment #3 from Matthias Saou <matthias(a)rpmforge.net&gt; 2008-11-04 12:46:14 --- I'm fine with you being the primary maintainer. I've only packaged cinelerra because I used it for a few video edits of mine (but none recently). I'm not entirely convinced about the s/cinelerra/cinelerra-cv/ name change, as I don't think it's really useful for both to be parallel installable. But if it's easy and not too confusing, then why not. But I suggest adding an "Obsoletes:" for cinelerra in that case. -- 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.

http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=118 --- Comment #5 from NicolasChauvet <kwizart(a)gmail.com&gt; 2008-12-03 18:11:57 --- thx for the report. I do think you can have silent denial with selinux (maybe). It would be fine if you can set selinux in permissive. I will update the F-10 cinelerra-cv package later this week... (the icon problem is known) -- 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.

http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=118 --- Comment #7 from John Griffiths <fedora03(a)grifent.com&gt; 2009-02-14 17:26:17 --- The problem has nothing to do with selinux. Every frame results in: [swscaler @ 0x9eb46a0]Slices start in the middle! when trying to render using YUV4MPEG. Rendering using MPEG video works, so this is a problem when rendering using the YUV4MPEG stream. This has been experienced by others not using Fedora 10 or the cinelerra-cv-2.1-21.git20081103.fc10.i386 package, so this is a cinelerra-cv issue. This has been discussed with no resolution on the YUV4MPEG stream, only the use of MPEG video instead, on the Cinelerra mailing list, cinelerra(a)skolelinux.no . Also of note is that Cinelerra-cv locks up the KDE 4.2.0 desktop when trying to check the green check mark in some but not all dialogs. The same version works fine in Gnome. Are we having fun yet? -- 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.

http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=118 --- Comment #9 from Andrea Musuruane <musuruan(a)gmail.com&gt; 2009-06-04 11:36:50 --- Ping. Is there a problem with this review? It seems it is stalled. -- 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.

http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=118 Me <linuxguy123(a)gmail.com&gt; changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |linuxguy123(a)gmail.com --- Comment #11 from Me <linuxguy123(a)gmail.com&gt; 2009-09-29 01:34:53 --- I'd like to see Cinelerra added too. I'm buying a Canon 7D camera that shoots high quality HD video. The 5D MKII does as well, as does the D300s and the Canon Ti and... etc. Its a new age in shooting video ! In order to fully utilize these new cameras, we need better video editors. Cinelerra looks to be just such an editor. And its been based on Unix/Linux since the early days. Thanks for listening. -- 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.

http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=118 PFJ <paul(a)all-the-johnsons.co.uk&gt; changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |paul(a)all-the-johnsons.co.uk --- Comment #13 from PFJ <paul(a)all-the-johnsons.co.uk&gt; 2010-07-24 15:57:53 --- I'm happy to try and get this package moving again. It might be a bit slow to start off with, but I should have something soon using the snapshot from last night. -- 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.

http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=118 --- Comment #15 from PFJ <paul(a)all-the-johnsons.co.uk&gt; 2010-07-25 13:24:30 --- Thanks. I've corrected quite a few of the issues already raised in the review, but there are a shed load of problems in getting the damned thing to even think about compiling currently! -- 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.

http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=118 --- Comment #16 from PFJ <paul(a)all-the-johnsons.co.uk&gt; 2010-07-25 23:15:26 --- New! spec file : http://www.all-the-johnsons.co.uk/fedora/cinelerra-cv.spec srpm : http://www.all-the-johnsons.co.uk/fedora/cinelerra-cv-2.1-23.git20100724.... I've addressed quite a few of the problems already raised, done a spec file clean up, added some new patches and got the damned thing to build! There are bound to be a few other problems with it, but please feel free to start the review. I will say now that there is a hack in the specfile for CXXFLAGS, but this is a workaround for UINTC_64 not showing up correctly in other packages. The srpm is 68Mb in size, so please give it another 15 minutes from now (it's 22.15 British Summer Time) before you drag it down. I've not test built this in mock, so if it dies, let me know! -- 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.

http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=118 --- Comment #18 from PFJ <paul(a)all-the-johnsons.co.uk&gt; 2010-07-27 12:37:21 --- Found a small problem in that bitstream-vera-fonts is no longer called that. Anyway, current spec file fixes it. It builds in mock on my machine, so I'll upload the new spec and tarball later today. Can someone please start the review process? Ta -- 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.

http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=118 --- Comment #20 from KAR <keith(a)karsites.net&gt; 2010-07-28 12:46:13 --- (In reply to comment #19) Will there be a binary RPM in the repo soon to test out? -- 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.

http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=118 --- Comment #22 from PFJ <paul(a)all-the-johnsons.co.uk&gt; 2010-07-29 08:50:28 --- Scrub the last one... http://www.all-the-johnsons.co.uk/fedora/cinelerra-cv-2.1-25.git20100726.... http://www.all-the-johnsons.co.uk/fedora/cinelerra-cv-docs-2.1-25.git2010... -- 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.

Hi, Yeah, that doesn't seem to be working... TTFN Paul -- Vertraue mir, ich weiss, was ich mache...

http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=118 --- Comment #25 from NicolasChauvet <kwizart(a)gmail.com&gt; 2010-12-15 22:44:49 --- Any improvement in this area ? (or shall we switch to Lumiera already ?) -- 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.

http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=118 --- Comment #27 from Hans de Goede <j.w.r.degoede(a)gmail.com&gt; 2010-12-16 08:33:48 --- I guess this one is mainly blocking on me reviewing PFJ's new versions. PFJ are you still interested in this? Then I'll make some time to review this. And sorry for not getting around to reviewing your versions earlier. -- 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.

http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=118 Hans de Goede <j.w.r.degoede(a)gmail.com&gt; changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Blocks| |3 Status|NEW |ASSIGNED --- Comment #29 from Hans de Goede <j.w.r.degoede(a)gmail.com&gt; 2010-12-24 14:27:47 --- (In reply to comment #28) Good! I just took a quick look, I notice that you use a git snapshot, but you don't provide instructions on how to generate the tarbal, making it impossible to verify if the sources in the SRPM match upstream, which is a must. I also noticed that CinelerraCV 2.1.5 is out (and from a later date then your git snapshot), so perhaps you can upgrade to that rather then using a git snapshot? That will also fix my verify problem. Other then that from a quick glance everything looks good. Some remarks about the shmmax tweaking though: This: if [ $(grep kernel.shmmax %{_sysconfdir}/sysctl.conf |wc -l) == 0 ] ; then Can be done simpler as this: if ! grep -q kernel.shmmax %{_sysconfdir}/sysctl.conf; then I also wonder if differentiating between the runtime and boottime config with the 2 checks is a good idea. If the user has already set a shmmax in his sysctl.conf, I agree we should not overwrite it, but if it is too low, this means cinelerra will work directly after install, but not after the first boot. Would it not be better to remove this: if [ $(/sbin/sysctl -n -q kernel.shmmax) -lt 2147483647 ] ; then # Hack for the package to work "out of the box". /sbin/sysctl -q -w kernel.shmmax=0x7fffffff fi And change the second if block to: if ! grep -q kernel.shmmax %{_sysconfdir}/sysctl.conf; then # Hack for the package to work "out of the box". /sbin/sysctl -q -w kernel.shmmax=0x7fffffff # Hack for the package to work on reboot. echo -e "\n# Added by Cinelerra RPM from RPM Fusion\nkernel.shmmax = 0x7fffffff" >> %{_sysconfdir}/sysctl.conf fi This way either shmmax is left completely unchanged, or it is set to the same value directly after install as it will be after a reboot. I guess this should be combined with a small sh wrapper script for cinelerra-cv which does the "if [ $(/sbin/sysctl -n -q kernel.shmmax) -lt 2147483647 ] ; then" check, and if there is not enough shm, then prints an error using zenity --error --text="..." and exits, or does cinelerra already checks for this itself ? I hope to see a package updated to 2.1.5 from you soon, and then I'll do a full review. Regards, Hans -- 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.