7:52 a.m.
Hi!
There were some discussions in private, so I think it's best to bring
this up on the list.
I'd like to ask all Livna maintainers to please continue with proper
package maintaining in Livna for now until we start to carry users over
from Livna to RPM Fusion. That should hopefully happen soon -- two weeks
maybe if everything works out well (proper DNS, better filled repos,
more space for the mastr-repo on the buildsys and proper release RPMs
are the main things that are needed before we start with that).
IOW: if you import
- a new version of an existing package
- a new package which obsoletes other Livna packages
to RPM Fusion *please* import and build it for Livna as well for now.
Yes, that is a bit of extra work, but that way the RPM Fusion (which has
no users yet) packages get indirectly tested in Livna (which has a lot
of users and testers); that is IMHO very important and will lead to
better packages in RPM Fusion!
CU
knurd
8:13 a.m.
2008/7/24 Thorsten Leemhuis <fedora(a)leemhuis.info>:
Hi!
There were some discussions in private, so I think it's best to bring this
up on the list.
I'd like to ask all Livna maintainers to please continue with proper package
maintaining in Livna for now until we start to carry users over from Livna
to RPM Fusion. That should hopefully happen soon -- two weeks maybe if
everything works out well (proper DNS, better filled repos, more space for
the mastr-repo on the buildsys and proper release RPMs are the main things
that are needed before we start with that).
IOW: if you import
- a new version of an existing package
- a new package which obsoletes other Livna packages
to RPM Fusion *please* import and build it for Livna as well for now.
Yes, that is a bit of extra work, but that way the RPM Fusion (which has no
users yet) packages get indirectly tested in Livna (which has a lot of users
and testers); that is IMHO very important and will lead to better packages
in RPM Fusion!
I Vote against -1 - and i would say: strongly against as this is not
a
clean way.
This is not possible to do this:
- Update package
- import new package wich obsoletes Upgrade/Path
That will break upgrade path from either livna/freshrpms to rpmfusion.
But it can still be possible to rebuilt package if needed (for library
version bump)
unless that package already be imported in rpmfusion.
Instead , if users really care to test, they will need to add
livna-development and rpmfusion development in their repo.
That 's the only way to test new packages that indeed targeted to be used.
This could have been a problem if the livna-development repository has
introduced a package that has an ABI break.
We don't have this case, (until ffmpeg is updated i guess) which will
lead to usual rawhide breakage if that appear.
But i would say, as nobody reported breakage for the new libraw1394.
We don't have testers yet anyway.
Nicolas (kwizart)
CU
knurd
8:31 a.m.
New subject: mpeg2dec re-created as libmpeg2
On Thu, 2008-07-24 at 10:13 +0200, KH KH wrote:
- Update package
- import new package wich obsoletes Upgrade/Path
OK, let's get back to the root of this problem. Maybe the timing for
re-creating the mpeg2dec package under a different name was
suboptimal...
Nicolas, how about you back out your libmpeg2 package from rpmfusion and
then we just import the livna package there. Then when things settle
down and rpmfusion is firmly in place I can cede ownership of the
package to you to do whatever you like with it...
/David
8:47 a.m.
New subject: mpeg2dec re-created as libmpeg2
2008/7/24 David Juran <david(a)juran.se>:
On Thu, 2008-07-24 at 10:13 +0200, KH KH wrote:
> - Update package
> - import new package wich obsoletes Upgrade/Path
OK, let's get back to the root of this problem. Maybe the timing for
re-creating the mpeg2dec package under a different name was
suboptimal...
Nicolas, how about you back out your libmpeg2 package from rpmfusion and
then we just import the livna package there. Then when things settle
down and rpmfusion is firmly in place I can cede ownership of the
package to you to do whatever you like with it...
/David
No, completely unacceptable.
Please note what i've answeared on the list for all
You cannot have a package NEVR in F-8 to be higher than F-9. If you
don't understand that,
I cannot explain that to you more.
Now difference between RPMFusion and Livna is the same talking about
upgrade NEVR
Nicolas (kwizart)
9:02 a.m.
New subject: mpeg2dec re-created as libmpeg2
On 24.07.2008 10:47, KH KH wrote:
2008/7/24 David Juran <david(a)juran.se>:
> On Thu, 2008-07-24 at 10:13 +0200, KH KH wrote:
>
>> - Update package
>> - import new package wich obsoletes Upgrade/Path
> OK, let's get back to the root of this problem. Maybe the timing for
> re-creating the mpeg2dec package under a different name was
> suboptimal...
> Nicolas, how about you back out your libmpeg2 package from rpmfusion and
> then we just import the livna package there. Then when things settle
> down and rpmfusion is firmly in place I can cede ownership of the
> package to you to do whatever you like with it...
No, completely unacceptable.
Please note what i've answeared on the list for all
You cannot have a package NEVR in F-8 to be higher than F-9. If you
don't understand that,
I cannot explain that to you more.
Please try to explain it again with a bit more details, as it seems at
least I and David didn't fully understand the whole problem yet.
CU
knurd
8:52 a.m.
New subject: mpeg2dec re-created as libmpeg2
On 24.07.2008 10:31, David Juran wrote:
On Thu, 2008-07-24 at 10:13 +0200, KH KH wrote:
> - Update package
> - import new package wich obsoletes Upgrade/Path
OK, let's get back to the root of this problem. Maybe the timing for
re-creating the mpeg2dec package under a different name was
suboptimal...
Nicolas, how about you back out your libmpeg2 package from rpmfusion and
then we just import the livna package there. Then when things settle
down and rpmfusion is firmly in place I can cede ownership of the
package to you to do whatever you like with it...
Could work. But is there a reasons why we can't simply go the other way
around and import the RPM Fusion libmpeg2 to livna devel now?
CU
knurd
9:04 a.m.
New subject: mpeg2dec re-created as libmpeg2
On Thu, 2008-07-24 at 10:52 +0200, Thorsten Leemhuis wrote:
On 24.07.2008 10:31, David Juran wrote:
> On Thu, 2008-07-24 at 10:13 +0200, KH KH wrote:
>
>> - Update package
>> - import new package wich obsoletes Upgrade/Path
> OK, let's get back to the root of this problem. Maybe the timing for
> re-creating the mpeg2dec package under a different name was
> suboptimal...
> Nicolas, how about you back out your libmpeg2 package from rpmfusion and
> then we just import the livna package there. Then when things settle
> down and rpmfusion is firmly in place I can cede ownership of the
> package to you to do whatever you like with it...
Could work. But is there a reasons why we can't simply go the other way
around and import the RPM Fusion libmpeg2 to livna devel now?
I'm fine with that (-:
Nicolas, do you agree it's a good idea/could you do this?
/David
9:18 a.m.
New subject: mpeg2dec re-created as libmpeg2
2008/7/24 David Juran <david(a)juran.se>:
On Thu, 2008-07-24 at 10:52 +0200, Thorsten Leemhuis wrote:
> On 24.07.2008 10:31, David Juran wrote:
> > On Thu, 2008-07-24 at 10:13 +0200, KH KH wrote:
> >
> >> - Update package
> >> - import new package wich obsoletes Upgrade/Path
> > OK, let's get back to the root of this problem. Maybe the timing for
> > re-creating the mpeg2dec package under a different name was
> > suboptimal...
> > Nicolas, how about you back out your libmpeg2 package from rpmfusion and
> > then we just import the livna package there. Then when things settle
> > down and rpmfusion is firmly in place I can cede ownership of the
> > package to you to do whatever you like with it...
>
> Could work. But is there a reasons why we can't simply go the other way
> around and import the RPM Fusion libmpeg2 to livna devel now?
I'm fine with that (-:
Nicolas, do you agree it's a good idea/could you do this?
How this will make
things different than just picking it from rpmfusion ?
This problem is really an easy level one.
Package EVR must be higher in F-9 than in F-8.
But the same is true to rpmfusion from livna/freshrpms. (within the
same release)
What would any want to talk more about this problem ?
Will that end finally ? and please remove the mpeg2dec-0.5.1.lvn10 !
Any other work for libmpeg2 have to be done in the RPMFusion version since now.
Nicolas (kwizart)
/David
11:43 a.m.
New subject: mpeg2dec re-created as libmpeg2
On 24.07.2008 11:18, KH KH wrote:
2008/7/24 David Juran <david(a)juran.se>:
> On Thu, 2008-07-24 at 10:52 +0200, Thorsten Leemhuis wrote:
>> On 24.07.2008 10:31, David Juran wrote:
>>> On Thu, 2008-07-24 at 10:13 +0200, KH KH wrote:
>>>> - Update package
>>>> - import new package wich obsoletes Upgrade/Path
>>> OK, let's get back to the root of this problem. Maybe the timing for
>>> re-creating the mpeg2dec package under a different name was
>>> suboptimal...
>>> Nicolas, how about you back out your libmpeg2 package from rpmfusion and
>>> then we just import the livna package there. Then when things settle
>>> down and rpmfusion is firmly in place I can cede ownership of the
>>> package to you to do whatever you like with it...
>> Could work. But is there a reasons why we can't simply go the other way
>> around and import the RPM Fusion libmpeg2 to livna devel now?
> I'm fine with that (-:
> Nicolas, do you agree it's a good idea/could you do this?
How this will make things different than just picking it from rpmfusion ?
For the user there is no RPM Fusion yet.
This problem is really an easy level one.
Yes -- just ship the same package (the one you imported to RPM Fusion=
in RPM Fusion and Livna. The EVR for the package in RPM Fusions of
course must he higher then the one in Livna and Freshrpms. Problem
solved, user can test and report problems now; if they find some we can
fix them before RPM Fusion gets live.
CU
knurd
11:53 a.m.
New subject: mpeg2dec re-created as libmpeg2
2008/7/24 Thorsten Leemhuis <fedora(a)leemhuis.info>:
On 24.07.2008 11:18, KH KH wrote:
>
> 2008/7/24 David Juran <david(a)juran.se>:
>>
>> On Thu, 2008-07-24 at 10:52 +0200, Thorsten Leemhuis wrote:
>>>
>>> On 24.07.2008 10:31, David Juran wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On Thu, 2008-07-24 at 10:13 +0200, KH KH wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> - Update package
>>>>> - import new package wich obsoletes Upgrade/Path
>>>>
>>>> OK, let's get back to the root of this problem. Maybe the timing for
>>>> re-creating the mpeg2dec package under a different name was
>>>> suboptimal...
>>>> Nicolas, how about you back out your libmpeg2 package from rpmfusion
>>>> and
>>>> then we just import the livna package there. Then when things settle
>>>> down and rpmfusion is firmly in place I can cede ownership of the
>>>> package to you to do whatever you like with it...
>>>
>>> Could work. But is there a reasons why we can't simply go the other way
>>> around and import the RPM Fusion libmpeg2 to livna devel now?
>>
>> I'm fine with that (-:
>> Nicolas, do you agree it's a good idea/could you do this?
>
> How this will make things different than just picking it from rpmfusion ?
For the user there is no RPM Fusion yet.
> This problem is really an easy level one.
Yes -- just ship the same package (the one you imported to RPM Fusion= in
RPM Fusion and Livna. The EVR for the package in RPM Fusions of course must
he higher then the one in Livna and Freshrpms. Problem solved, user can test
and report problems now; if they find some we can fix them before RPM Fusion
gets live.
Please!!! Enought talking! REMOVE this package now.
How it is possible that you don't understand this is not the right way.
Please read again...You don't answear to what i've written. That's
really disappointing.
Nicolas (kwizart)
CU
knurd
1:58 p.m.
New subject: mpeg2dec re-created as libmpeg2
KH KH wrote:
2008/7/24 Thorsten Leemhuis <fedora(a)leemhuis.info>:
> On 24.07.2008 11:18, KH KH wrote:
>> 2008/7/24 David Juran <david(a)juran.se>:
>>> On Thu, 2008-07-24 at 10:52 +0200, Thorsten Leemhuis wrote:
>>>> On 24.07.2008 10:31, David Juran wrote:
>>>>> On Thu, 2008-07-24 at 10:13 +0200, KH KH wrote:
>>>>>> - Update package
>>>>>> - import new package wich obsoletes Upgrade/Path
>>>>> OK, let's get back to the root of this problem. Maybe the timing
for
>>>>> re-creating the mpeg2dec package under a different name was
>>>>> suboptimal...
>>>>> Nicolas, how about you back out your libmpeg2 package from rpmfusion
>>>>> and
>>>>> then we just import the livna package there. Then when things settle
>>>>> down and rpmfusion is firmly in place I can cede ownership of the
>>>>> package to you to do whatever you like with it...
>>>> Could work. But is there a reasons why we can't simply go the other
way
>>>> around and import the RPM Fusion libmpeg2 to livna devel now?
>>> I'm fine with that (-:
>>> Nicolas, do you agree it's a good idea/could you do this?
>> How this will make things different than just picking it from rpmfusion ?
> For the user there is no RPM Fusion yet.
>
>> This problem is really an easy level one.
> Yes -- just ship the same package (the one you imported to RPM Fusion= in
> RPM Fusion and Livna. The EVR for the package in RPM Fusions of course must
> he higher then the one in Livna and Freshrpms. Problem solved, user can test
> and report problems now; if they find some we can fix them before RPM Fusion
> gets live.
>
Please!!! Enought talking! REMOVE this package now.
How it is possible that you don't understand this is not the right way.
Nicolas,
I think their is some miscommunication here, I've been following this thread
and I don't understand what your talking about either.
Remove *which* package from *where* and *why*?
Can you please give the full N-V-R of the package you want removed, from which
repo you want it removed (for example livna-development or rpmfusion-F-9) and
explain a little bit more why?
Please.
Regards,
Hans
2:02 p.m.
New subject: mpeg2dec re-created as libmpeg2
On 24.07.2008 13:53, KH KH wrote:
2008/7/24 Thorsten Leemhuis <fedora(a)leemhuis.info>:
> On 24.07.2008 11:18, KH KH wrote:
>> 2008/7/24 David Juran <david(a)juran.se>:
>>> On Thu, 2008-07-24 at 10:52 +0200, Thorsten Leemhuis wrote:
>>>> On 24.07.2008 10:31, David Juran wrote:
>>>>> On Thu, 2008-07-24 at 10:13 +0200, KH KH wrote:
>>>>>> - Update package
>>>>>> - import new package wich obsoletes Upgrade/Path
>>>>> OK, let's get back to the root of this problem. Maybe the timing
for
>>>>> re-creating the mpeg2dec package under a different name was
>>>>> suboptimal...
>>>>> Nicolas, how about you back out your libmpeg2 package from rpmfusion
>>>>> and
>>>>> then we just import the livna package there. Then when things settle
>>>>> down and rpmfusion is firmly in place I can cede ownership of the
>>>>> package to you to do whatever you like with it...
>>>> Could work. But is there a reasons why we can't simply go the other
way
>>>> around and import the RPM Fusion libmpeg2 to livna devel now?
>>> I'm fine with that (-:
>>> Nicolas, do you agree it's a good idea/could you do this?
>> How this will make things different than just picking it from rpmfusion ?
> For the user there is no RPM Fusion yet.
>
>> This problem is really an easy level one.
> Yes -- just ship the same package (the one you imported to RPM Fusion= in
> RPM Fusion and Livna. The EVR for the package in RPM Fusions of course must
> he higher then the one in Livna and Freshrpms. Problem solved, user can test
> and report problems now; if they find some we can fix them before RPM Fusion
> gets live.
Please!!! Enought talking!
I still don't understand that. So here is the question I'd like to see
answered:
Why can't libmpeg2 from RPM Fusion be imported to Livna devel with a EVR
that is lower then the one of the package that was build for RPM Fusion?
Because that's what I'd like to do, to let the Livna devel users test
the package now, as that will be a benefit for the RPM Fusion package
later, as potential bugs will get found earlier if users get the
packagers earlier.
REMOVE this package now.
Don't yell if there is nothing to remove in Livna ;-) -- the updated
mpeg2dec from your Co-Maintainer David never made it to the repo; it was
just accidentally mentioned in the build report.
How it is possible that you don't understand this is not the
right way.
I suppose that's mostly my fault, but I often have a really hard time
following your mails. Take the "REMOVE this package now." from above.
What is this here libmpeg2 from RPM Fusion? The older mpeg2dec in livna?
The new one that the libmpeg2 Co-Maintainer commited to Livna? I knew
which one you meant -- but a bit more "--verbose" would be helpful to
understand your mails.
CU
knurd
9:07 a.m.
New subject: mpeg2dec re-created as libmpeg2
2008/7/24 Thorsten Leemhuis <fedora(a)leemhuis.info>:
On 24.07.2008 10:31, David Juran wrote:
>
> On Thu, 2008-07-24 at 10:13 +0200, KH KH wrote:
>
>> - Update package
>> - import new package wich obsoletes Upgrade/Path
>
> OK, let's get back to the root of this problem. Maybe the timing for
> re-creating the mpeg2dec package under a different name was
> suboptimal... Nicolas, how about you back out your libmpeg2 package from
> rpmfusion and
> then we just import the livna package there. Then when things settle
> down and rpmfusion is firmly in place I can cede ownership of the
> package to you to do whatever you like with it...
Could work. But is there a reasons why we can't simply go the other way
around and import the RPM Fusion libmpeg2 to livna devel now?
because that
doesn't make any sense. We are not in the security update
world here!
This update is the first in 2 years in libmpeg2, nothing is ABI
bumped, no headers have moved (they revert back the mpeg2dec ->
libmpeg2 directory move for includes). They just fixed some internal
function, added SSE2 IDCT and add other support that we don't
need.(ARM). But that remains internal library. Nothing should be seen
in package linking to it.
So there is really nothing scary that make the need of a compulsive
update just now. we can wait some weeks to have it present.
Nicolas
CU
knurd
5765
days inactive
5765
days old
rpmfusion-developers@lists.rpmfusion.org
12 comments
4 participants
participants (4)
-
David Juran -
Hans de Goede -
Nicolas Chauvet -
Thorsten Leemhuis