10:36 p.m.
We're currently getting an outage service on rpmfusion.
Affected Services:
-----------------------------
Buildsystem: plague-server
Unaffected Services:
-----------------------------
Account System
CVS / Source Control
Database
DNS
Mail
Bug System
Websites
Reason for Outage:
We're getting issue on plague-server work_dir (which is an nfs share).
Thias is the only one having access to nfs server to fix this and seem
not around for now.
I'll switch plague down until it fix to avoid job queuing and release
nfs busying.
Contact Information:
Please join #rpmfusion in irc.freenode.net or respond to this email to
track the status of this outage.
--
Xavier.t Lamien
--
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/XavierLamien
GPG-Key ID: F3903DEB
Fingerprint: 0F2A 7A17 0F1B 82EE FCBF 1F51 76B7 A28D F390 3DEB
12:46 p.m.
Hi,
Yeah, a file server going nuts. I'm still moving the content around.
Everything should be back to normal as soon as the current sync is
finished. Given the amount of data, it should be at least another hour
or two.
Sorry for the inconvenience.
Matthias
Xavier Lamien wrote :
We're currently getting an outage service on rpmfusion.
Affected Services:
-----------------------------
Buildsystem: plague-server
Unaffected Services:
-----------------------------
Account System
CVS / Source Control
Database
DNS
Mail
Bug System
Websites
Reason for Outage:
We're getting issue on plague-server work_dir (which is an nfs share).
Thias is the only one having access to nfs server to fix this and seem
not around for now.
I'll switch plague down until it fix to avoid job queuing and release
nfs busying.
Contact Information:
Please join #rpmfusion in irc.freenode.net or respond to this email to
track the status of this outage.
--
Clean custom Red Hat Linux rpm packages : http://freshrpms.net/
Fedora release 10 (Cambridge) - Linux kernel
2.6.27.12-170.2.5.fc10.x86_64 Load : 0.40 0.48 0.32
1:35 p.m.
Hi,
All of the data is back in place. If anything is missing, it'll what
couldn't be written when the filesystem went into read-only mode.
Matthias
Matthias Saou wrote :
Hi,
Yeah, a file server going nuts. I'm still moving the content around.
Everything should be back to normal as soon as the current sync is
finished. Given the amount of data, it should be at least another hour
or two.
Sorry for the inconvenience.
Matthias
Xavier Lamien wrote :
> We're currently getting an outage service on rpmfusion.
>
> Affected Services:
> -----------------------------
> Buildsystem: plague-server
>
>
> Unaffected Services:
> -----------------------------
> Account System
> CVS / Source Control
> Database
> DNS
> Mail
> Bug System
> Websites
>
>
> Reason for Outage:
> We're getting issue on plague-server work_dir (which is an nfs share).
> Thias is the only one having access to nfs server to fix this and seem
> not around for now.
> I'll switch plague down until it fix to avoid job queuing and release
> nfs busying.
>
>
> Contact Information:
>
> Please join #rpmfusion in irc.freenode.net or respond to this email to
> track the status of this outage.
>
--
Clean custom Red Hat Linux rpm packages : http://freshrpms.net/
Fedora release 10 (Cambridge) - Linux kernel
2.6.27.12-170.2.5.fc10.x86_64 Load : 1.88 0.87 0.61
6:54 p.m.
On Sat, Mar 7, 2009 at 11:36 PM, Xavier Lamien
<laxathom(a)fedoraproject.org> wrote:
We're currently getting an outage service on rpmfusion.
Affected Services:
-----------------------------
Buildsystem: plague-server
Unaffected Services:
-----------------------------
Account System
CVS / Source Control
Database
DNS
Mail
Bug System
Websites
Reason for Outage:
We're getting issue on plague-server work_dir (which is an nfs share).
Thias is the only one having access to nfs server to fix this and seem
not around for now.
I'll switch plague down until it fix to avoid job queuing and release
nfs busying.
Contact Information:
Please join #rpmfusion in irc.freenode.net or respond to this email to
track the status of this outage.
The outage is now over.
Plague is back online and all your requested jobs have been re-queued.
Thanks Thias for having take care of the hardware issue this morning.
--
Xavier.t Lamien
--
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/XavierLamien
GPG-Key ID: F3903DEB
Fingerprint: 0F2A 7A17 0F1B 82EE FCBF 1F51 76B7 A28D F390 3DEB
8:03 p.m.
Xavier Lamien pisze:
On Sat, Mar 7, 2009 at 11:36 PM, Xavier Lamien
<laxathom(a)fedoraproject.org> wrote:
> We're currently getting an outage service on rpmfusion.
>
> Affected Services:
> -----------------------------
> Buildsystem: plague-server
>
>
> Unaffected Services:
> -----------------------------
> Account System
> CVS / Source Control
> Database
> DNS
> Mail
> Bug System
> Websites
>
>
> Reason for Outage:
> We're getting issue on plague-server work_dir (which is an nfs share).
> Thias is the only one having access to nfs server to fix this and seem
> not around for now.
> I'll switch plague down until it fix to avoid job queuing and release
> nfs busying.
>
>
> Contact Information:
>
> Please join #rpmfusion in irc.freenode.net or respond to this email to
> track the status of this outage.
>
The outage is now over.
Plague is back online and all your requested jobs have been re-queued.
Thanks Thias for having take care of the hardware issue this morning.
Could you please switch http://buildsys.rpmfusion.org/build-status/ back
on as well? Thanks,
Julian
8:14 p.m.
On 09/03/09 20:03, Julian Sikorski wrote:
Could you please switch http://buildsys.rpmfusion.org/build-status/ back
on as well? Thanks,
Julian
Works fine for me. What do you see wrong with it?
Big thanks to Xavier and Matthias for getting everything back up and
running :)
C
8:16 p.m.
Chris Nolan pisze:
On 09/03/09 20:03, Julian Sikorski wrote:
>
> Could you please switch http://buildsys.rpmfusion.org/build-status/ back
> on as well? Thanks,
>
> Julian
>
Works fine for me. What do you see wrong with it?
Big thanks to Xavier and Matthias for getting everything back up and
running :)
C
Blame cache. F5 did the trick.
Julian
5:50 a.m.
On 09.03.2009 21:14, Chris Nolan wrote:
Big thanks to Xavier and Matthias for getting everything back up and
running :)
Don't forget to thank dwmw2 for updating the ppc builder to F10.
IOW: Many thanks for your help David, much appreciated!
BTW, I updated the configs on the x86-32 builders to build for i586
during the outage. One piece was still missing which I just did. I fired
of a test build and everything looks fine. If anyone want's to check:
http://buildsys.rpmfusion.org/logs/fedora-development-rpmfusion_free/2978...
So we got the new rpm and build for i586 now on x86-32. Are any other
changes needed? Do we want to do a mass rebuild? How: Manual or
scripted? And are there any big updates pending that we should do before
starting the mass rebuild (ffmpeg?)
CU
knurd
6:31 p.m.
Thorsten Leemhuis pisze:
On 09.03.2009 21:14, Chris Nolan wrote:
>
> Big thanks to Xavier and Matthias for getting everything back up and
> running :)
Don't forget to thank dwmw2 for updating the ppc builder to F10.
IOW: Many thanks for your help David, much appreciated!
BTW, I updated the configs on the x86-32 builders to build for i586
during the outage. One piece was still missing which I just did. I fired
of a test build and everything looks fine. If anyone want's to check:
http://buildsys.rpmfusion.org/logs/fedora-development-rpmfusion_free/2978...
So we got the new rpm and build for i586 now on x86-32. Are any other
changes needed? Do we want to do a mass rebuild? How: Manual or
scripted? And are there any big updates pending that we should do before
starting the mass rebuild (ffmpeg?)
CU
knurd
I think we should do a mass rebuild, just as fedora did. Does the
“stronger hashes” feature concern us as well? I'd opt for doing a
scripted rebuild, it should be overally easier than doing the changes by
hand.
Julian
8:35 p.m.
On Tue, Mar 10, 2009 at 7:31 PM, Julian Sikorski <belegdol(a)gmail.com> wrote:
Thorsten Leemhuis pisze:
> On 09.03.2009 21:14, Chris Nolan wrote:
>>
>> Big thanks to Xavier and Matthias for getting everything back up and
>> running :)
>
> Don't forget to thank dwmw2 for updating the ppc builder to F10.
>
> IOW: Many thanks for your help David, much appreciated!
>
> BTW, I updated the configs on the x86-32 builders to build for i586
> during the outage. One piece was still missing which I just did. I fired
> of a test build and everything looks fine. If anyone want's to check:
>
http://buildsys.rpmfusion.org/logs/fedora-development-rpmfusion_free/2978...
>
>
> So we got the new rpm and build for i586 now on x86-32. Are any other
> changes needed? Do we want to do a mass rebuild? How: Manual or
> scripted? And are there any big updates pending that we should do before
> starting the mass rebuild (ffmpeg?)
>
> CU
> knurd
>
I think we should do a mass rebuild, just as fedora did. Does the
“stronger hashes” feature concern us as well? I'd opt for doing a
scripted rebuild, it should be overally easier than doing the changes by
hand.
I'm fine with a mass rebuild
--
Xavier.t Lamien
--
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/XavierLamien
GPG-Key ID: F3903DEB
Fingerprint: 0F2A 7A17 0F1B 82EE FCBF 1F51 76B7 A28D F390 3DEB
7:15 a.m.
New subject: Stronger Hashes (was: Re: Outage Notication: Build System)
On 10.03.2009 19:31, Julian Sikorski wrote:
Thorsten Leemhuis pisze:
> So we got the new rpm and build for i586 now on x86-32. Are any other
> changes needed? Do we want to do a mass rebuild? How: Manual or
> scripted? And are there any big updates pending that we should do before
> starting the mass rebuild (ffmpeg?)
I think we should do a mass rebuild, just as fedora did.
BTW (in case that wasn't obvious from my earlier mail): I agree here ;-)
Does the “stronger hashes” feature concern us as well?
I'd say it "would be nice to have". But does anyone know what exact
steps we need to do to get it? After reading
https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-announce-list/2009-March/msg00004....
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/StrongerHashes
is seems it requires a few changes in different areas of our infra.
Somebody afaics need to look into what exactly is needed. Any
volunteers? Anyone with a good connection to Fedora intra/Jesse/mitr
that could ask for advice?
I'd opt for doing a
scripted rebuild, it should be overally easier than doing the changes by
hand.
+1
CU
knurd
9:15 a.m.
New subject: Stronger Hashes (was: Re: Outage Notication: Build System)
Thorsten Leemhuis píše v St 11. 03. 2009 v 08:15 +0100:
On 10.03.2009 19:31, Julian Sikorski wrote:
> Thorsten Leemhuis pisze:
>> So we got the new rpm and build for i586 now on x86-32. Are any other
>> changes needed? Do we want to do a mass rebuild? How: Manual or
>> scripted? And are there any big updates pending that we should do before
>> starting the mass rebuild (ffmpeg?)
> I think we should do a mass rebuild, just as fedora did.
BTW (in case that wasn't obvious from my earlier mail): I agree here ;-)
> Does the “stronger hashes” feature concern us as well?
I'd say it "would be nice to have". But does anyone know what exact
steps we need to do to get it? After reading
https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-announce-list/2009-March/msg00004....
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/StrongerHashes
is seems it requires a few changes in different areas of our infra.
Somebody afaics need to look into what exactly is needed. Any
volunteers? Anyone with a good connection to Fedora intra/Jesse/mitr
that could ask for advice?
I talked to mitr and he is ready answer your questions, he is usually
online on #fedora-devel.
Dan
9:53 a.m.
New subject: Stronger Hashes
On 12.03.2009 10:15, Dan Horák wrote:
Thorsten Leemhuis píše v St 11. 03. 2009 v 08:15 +0100:
> On 10.03.2009 19:31, Julian Sikorski wrote:
>> Thorsten Leemhuis pisze:
>>> So we got the new rpm and build for i586 now on x86-32. Are any other
>>> changes needed? Do we want to do a mass rebuild? How: Manual or
>>> scripted? And are there any big updates pending that we should do before
>>> starting the mass rebuild (ffmpeg?)
>> I think we should do a mass rebuild, just as fedora did.
> BTW (in case that wasn't obvious from my earlier mail): I agree here ;-)
>
>> Does the “stronger hashes” feature concern us as well?
> I'd say it "would be nice to have". But does anyone know what exact
> steps we need to do to get it? After reading
> https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-announce-list/2009-March/msg00004....
> http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/StrongerHashes
> is seems it requires a few changes in different areas of our infra.
> Somebody afaics need to look into what exactly is needed. Any
> volunteers? Anyone with a good connection to Fedora intra/Jesse/mitr
> that could ask for advice?
I talked to mitr and he is ready answer your questions, he is usually
online on #fedora-devel.
Hehe, nice trick ;-) The purpose of my mail was to put the work (or at
least parts of it) on somebodies else todo-list and not on mine (which
is filled with lots of RPM-Fusion-related work already). I thought that
was obvious ;-)
Anyway, no big deal, if nobody steps up then I'll of course do it sooner
or later (not the first time...).
CU
knurd
10:24 a.m.
New subject: Stronger Hashes
Thorsten Leemhuis píše v Čt 12. 03. 2009 v 10:53 +0100:
On 12.03.2009 10:15, Dan Horák wrote:
> Thorsten Leemhuis píše v St 11. 03. 2009 v 08:15 +0100:
>> On 10.03.2009 19:31, Julian Sikorski wrote:
>>> Thorsten Leemhuis pisze:
>>>> So we got the new rpm and build for i586 now on x86-32. Are any other
>>>> changes needed? Do we want to do a mass rebuild? How: Manual or
>>>> scripted? And are there any big updates pending that we should do
before
>>>> starting the mass rebuild (ffmpeg?)
>>> I think we should do a mass rebuild, just as fedora did.
>> BTW (in case that wasn't obvious from my earlier mail): I agree here ;-)
>>
>>> Does the “stronger hashes” feature concern us as well?
>> I'd say it "would be nice to have". But does anyone know what
exact
>> steps we need to do to get it? After reading
>> https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-announce-list/2009-March/msg00004....
>> http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/StrongerHashes
>> is seems it requires a few changes in different areas of our infra.
>> Somebody afaics need to look into what exactly is needed. Any
>> volunteers? Anyone with a good connection to Fedora intra/Jesse/mitr
>> that could ask for advice?
> I talked to mitr and he is ready answer your questions, he is usually
> online on #fedora-devel.
Hehe, nice trick ;-) The purpose of my mail was to put the work (or at
least parts of it) on somebodies else todo-list and not on mine (which
is filled with lots of RPM-Fusion-related work already). I thought that
was obvious ;-)
He is colleague of mine so I wanted to assure anyone (not only you, but
really anyone) that he will be helpful. I am sorry if it could be
understood that I expect you should actually do it.
Anyway, no big deal, if nobody steps up then I'll of course do it
sooner
or later (not the first time...).
Dan
4:13 p.m.
New subject: Stronger Hashes
2009/3/12 Thorsten Leemhuis <fedora(a)leemhuis.info>:
On 12.03.2009 10:15, Dan Horák wrote:
>
> Thorsten Leemhuis píše v St 11. 03. 2009 v 08:15 +0100:
>>
>> On 10.03.2009 19:31, Julian Sikorski wrote:
>>>
>>> Thorsten Leemhuis pisze:
>>>>
>>>> So we got the new rpm and build for i586 now on x86-32. Are any other
>>>> changes needed? Do we want to do a mass rebuild? How: Manual or
>>>> scripted? And are there any big updates pending that we should do
>>>> before
>>>> starting the mass rebuild (ffmpeg?)
>>>
>>> I think we should do a mass rebuild, just as fedora did.
>>
>> BTW (in case that wasn't obvious from my earlier mail): I agree here ;-)
>>
>>> Does the “stronger hashes” feature concern us as well?
>>
>> I'd say it "would be nice to have". But does anyone know what exact
steps
>> we need to do to get it? After reading
>>
>> https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-announce-list/2009-March/msg00004....
>> http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/StrongerHashes
>> is seems it requires a few changes in different areas of our infra.
>> Somebody afaics need to look into what exactly is needed. Any volunteers?
>> Anyone with a good connection to Fedora intra/Jesse/mitr that could ask for
>> advice?
>
> I talked to mitr and he is ready answer your questions, he is usually
> online on #fedora-devel.
Hehe, nice trick ;-) The purpose of my mail was to put the work (or at least
parts of it) on somebodies else todo-list and not on mine (which is filled
with lots of RPM-Fusion-related work already). I thought that was obvious
;-)
According to the 23/02/2009 commit's of redhat-rpm-config, theses
macros are added.
--------
+# Use SHA-256 for FILEDIGESTS instead of default MD5
+%_source_filedigest_algorithm 8
+%_binary_filedigest_algorithm 8
+
------------
Since we don't override the redhat-rpm-config we should already use
StongerHashes.
So I don't think we don't need to tweak anything from our
configuration. Furthermore packages built since this new
redhat-rpm-config already use strongerhash . (rpm -qR package show
rpmlib(FileDigests) <= 4.6.0-1 ) This means they cannot be installed
on F-9 (GA + updates) nor F-10 vanilla (GA only) unless rpmlib
provides that capability.
Now the second part of the problem is:
Is it possible to sign these rpms. And I think that's depend if the
rpm version used to sign.
I was abble to do so, using F-10 + updates (meaning rpmlib >=
4.6.0-1), but I don't know which rpm version is used for signing
rpmfusion package. Is there a problem in this area ?
Nicolas (kwizart)
4:14 p.m.
New subject: Stronger Hashes
2009/3/13 Nicolas Chauvet <kwizart(a)gmail.com>:
Since we don't override the redhat-rpm-config we should already
use
StongerHashes.
So I don't think we don't need to tweak anything from our
should read:
So I don't think we need to tweak anything from our
3:40 p.m.
New subject: Stronger Hashes
On 13.03.2009 17:13, Nicolas Chauvet wrote:
According to the 23/02/2009 commit's of redhat-rpm-config, theses
macros are added.
[...]
So I don't think we need to tweak anything from our
configuration. Furthermore packages built since this new
redhat-rpm-config already use strongerhash.
Maybe not for the Feature "StrongerHash" directly, but for related
things; quoting a part from
https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-announce-list/2009-March/msg00004....
here:
"""
At the same time, Rel-Eng was attempting to get the Fedora 11 Beta
packages
signed with a newly generated f11-test key that is much larger in size (this
is related to the Stronger Hashes Feature that is coming with F11). The use
of the larger GPG key requires some different arguments to be passed to rpm
for the signing phase, including using --digest-algo sha256. The signing
script was being reworked to invoke rpm correctly for this Feature, as well
as still work for the current release's GPG keys.
"""
CU
knurd
5:54 p.m.
New subject: Stronger Hashes
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
On 15.03.2009 16:40, Thorsten Leemhuis wrote:
| On 13.03.2009 17:13, Nicolas Chauvet wrote:
|> According to the 23/02/2009 commit's of redhat-rpm-config, theses
|> macros are added.
|> [...]
|> So I don't think we need to tweak anything from our
|> configuration. Furthermore packages built since this new
|> redhat-rpm-config already use strongerhash.
| Maybe not for the Feature "StrongerHash" directly, but for related
| things; quoting a part from
|
https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-announce-list/2009-March/msg00004....
| here:
| """
|> At the same time, Rel-Eng was attempting to get the Fedora 11 Beta
packages
|> signed with a newly generated f11-test key that is much larger in
size (this
|> is related to the Stronger Hashes Feature that is coming with F11).
The use
|> of the larger GPG key requires some different arguments to be passed
to rpm
|> for the signing phase, including using --digest-algo sha256. The signing
|> script was being reworked to invoke rpm correctly for this Feature,
as well
|> as still work for the current release's GPG keys.
| """
Okay, mschwendt updated the push scripts (many thanks for your support
Michael!) to support different signing commands for different repos. I
created a new key and new release packages and everything afaics works
now as it's supposed to be.
The public key for the new signing key is part of the new release
packages that are available in RPM Fusion {non,}free for Fedora rawhide
since a few days now. Find the fingerprints as clearsigned file attached.
All new packages get signed with the new key. That means: If you don't
update regularly then you might need to update rpmfusion-free-release
and rpmfusion-nonfree-release first, then everything else -- otherwise
yum will complain that is has no key to verify. Also please make sure
that your merge /etc/yum.repos.d/rpmfusion*free*.repo.rpmnew files if
they get created during install of the new release packages, as those
files will contain the path to the new key.
We afaics could start a mass-rebuild now if we want to, but I guess it
might make sense to wait for the ffmpeg update. Dominik?
CU
knurd
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Fedora - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
iEYEARECAAYFAknKb8sACgkQUjQh93TopkFlfgCdHVj+ycdmrhLowZXUT7EWygXZ
XQgAn31tojVzzNzQdan20fLcCyBkskR7
=1gl3
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
pub 4096R/8FCFF4DA 2009-03-21
Key fingerprint = 1880 298A 4E99 0D67 7B37 DCCA AD27 0844 8FCF F4DA
uid RPM Fusion free repository for Fedora (11)
<rpmfusion-buildsys(a)lists.rpmfusion.org>
pub 4096R/8DC43844 2009-03-21
Key fingerprint = C8C3 C7AC 6EA8 BA7E 1E25 8F46 4D2A 1BDC 8DC4 3844
uid RPM Fusion nonfree repository for Fedora (11)
<rpmfusion-buildsys(a)lists.rpmfusion.org>
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFJymzMhVCZsknIiFoRAssOAKCroPKD17To/ks5MLS/sVjKRJqD6ACgpRtX
spPS+m+hp27uZLJIw6wINNY=
=7An5
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
9:14 p.m.
New subject: Stronger Hashes
On Wednesday, 25 March 2009 at 18:54, Thorsten Leemhuis wrote:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
On 15.03.2009 16:40, Thorsten Leemhuis wrote:
| On 13.03.2009 17:13, Nicolas Chauvet wrote:
|> According to the 23/02/2009 commit's of redhat-rpm-config, theses
|> macros are added.
|> [...]
|> So I don't think we need to tweak anything from our
|> configuration. Furthermore packages built since this new
|> redhat-rpm-config already use strongerhash.
| Maybe not for the Feature "StrongerHash" directly, but for related
| things; quoting a part from
|
https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-announce-list/2009-March/msg00004....
| here:
| """
|> At the same time, Rel-Eng was attempting to get the Fedora 11 Beta
packages
|> signed with a newly generated f11-test key that is much larger in
size (this
|> is related to the Stronger Hashes Feature that is coming with F11).
The use
|> of the larger GPG key requires some different arguments to be passed
to rpm
|> for the signing phase, including using --digest-algo sha256. The signing
|> script was being reworked to invoke rpm correctly for this Feature,
as well
|> as still work for the current release's GPG keys.
| """
Okay, mschwendt updated the push scripts (many thanks for your support
Michael!) to support different signing commands for different repos. I
created a new key and new release packages and everything afaics works
now as it's supposed to be.
The public key for the new signing key is part of the new release
packages that are available in RPM Fusion {non,}free for Fedora rawhide
since a few days now. Find the fingerprints as clearsigned file attached.
All new packages get signed with the new key. That means: If you don't
update regularly then you might need to update rpmfusion-free-release
and rpmfusion-nonfree-release first, then everything else -- otherwise
yum will complain that is has no key to verify. Also please make sure
that your merge /etc/yum.repos.d/rpmfusion*free*.repo.rpmnew files if
they get created during install of the new release packages, as those
files will contain the path to the new key.
We afaics could start a mass-rebuild now if we want to, but I guess it
might make sense to wait for the ffmpeg update. Dominik?
Did you mean faad2/x264 update? FFmpeg is up-to-date already. I'm not
planning to have anything newer than 0.5 in F-11 at this point. Current
FFmpeg SVN is still a bit unstable API and ABI-wise.
If so, then I think we're ready. I've successfully rebuilt all packages
that depend on x264 and faad2, so I can build faad2-2.7 in rawhide anytime.
Regards,
R.
--
Fedora http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Rathann
RPMFusion http://rpmfusion.org | MPlayer http://mplayerhq.hu
"Faith manages."
-- Delenn to Lennier in Babylon 5:"Confessions and Lamentations"
5:40 a.m.
New subject: Stronger Hashes
On 25.03.2009 22:14, Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski wrote:
On Wednesday, 25 March 2009 at 18:54, Thorsten Leemhuis wrote:
> We afaics could start a mass-rebuild now if we want to, but I guess it
> might make sense to wait for the ffmpeg update. Dominik?
Did you mean faad2/x264 update? [...]
Ahh, yes. Sorry for mixing things up.
If so, then I think we're ready. I've successfully rebuilt
all packages
that depend on x264 and faad2, so I can build faad2-2.7 in rawhide anytime.
Then I'd say: Go for it.
CU
knurd
5528
days inactive
5547
days old
rpmfusion-developers@lists.rpmfusion.org
19 comments
8 participants
participants (8)
-
Chris Nolan -
Dan Horák -
Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski -
Julian Sikorski -
Matthias Saou -
Nicolas Chauvet -
Thorsten Leemhuis -
Xavier Lamien