<div dir="ltr"><div><div><div><div><div><div>Regarding<br><a href="https://lists.rpmfusion.org/pipermail/rpmfusion-users/2014-August/000429.html">https://lists.rpmfusion.org/pipermail/rpmfusion-users/2014-August/000429.html</a><br>
</div></div><br><pre>On 2014-08-01 07:03, Richard Shaw wrote:
><i> On Thu, Jul 31, 2014 at 1:45 PM, Brady, Mike <<a href="http://lists.rpmfusion.org/mailman/listinfo/rpmfusion-users">mike.brady at devnull.net.nz</a>> wrote:
</i>><i>
</i>>><i> Are there any plans for Centos/RHEL 6/7 0.27.x packages?
</i>><i>
</i>><i> That's currently not possible because the version of QT in RHEL is too old and the version in EPEL (QT5) is too new. <br></i><i><i>Since RPM Fusion has a policy not to replace currently shipping packages we're at an impasse. </i>
</i>><i>
</i>><i> Once RPM Fusion branches for EPEL 7 I plan to support the package there though.
</i>><i>
</i>><i> Thanks,
</i>><i> Richard
</i>
Thanks Richard. I suspected that that may have been the case. My plan
for my next build was to go with Centos 7 anyway so that works for me.
</pre><br>Richard,<br><br>While what you said is not "incorrect". I want to add some things. My opinions are directed towards RPMfusion and all members with decision making power<br></div><div>for building packages, not just you.<br>
<br> My uncle Doodle used to say:<br><br> "Opinions are like *ss#holes, Everybody has one!". <br><br></div></div>Like it or not. <br>I don't come out from behind my rock too much. <br>But when I do, I have some things to say and this is my opinion!<br>
</div></div><div><div><div><div><div><div><br><pre><i>>That's currently not possible because the version of QT in RHEL is too old and the version in EPEL (QT5) is too new.<br></i></pre><pre><i><br>*Don't use qt5 with EL6. It's not binary compatible directly with el6's qt4-6.2 but qt4-4.8.X is. Someone told you wrong to try it.<br>
<br><br></i></pre><pre><i>*Use this repo instead. Created by SIC from Fedora # This was built isolated in /opt, I have rebuilt it against 4.8.5 with Axels' reference system for qt47.<br><a href="https://repos.fedorapeople.org/repos/sic/qt48/epel-qt48.repo">https://repos.fedorapeople.org/repos/sic/qt48/epel-qt48.repo</a><br>
</i></pre><pre><i>You have to force it(unless you rebuilt it) because mythtv packages from Axel and RPMf are built against the qt*-* and not qt48-qt-*.<br></i></pre><pre><i>My qt48-4.8.5 spec/build that I upgraded from (sics) previous great work on this subject will be turned over to Axel with a matter of days. And then it will <br>
</i></pre><pre><i>start populating the el6 repos as things always have. Axel's obviously busy or he'd had make this work already and we wouldn't be discussing it.<br></i></pre><pre><i>It's my opinion that Axel was ok with having a couple small rpm issues in qt47(which is why it was in atrpms-testing)<br>
<br>I'm sure Axel probably expected the Open Source Community and peers like us to fix that and contribute and not just <br>try and fix it and NOT contribute, and then complain.<br><br></i></pre><pre><i>Axels "vacations" to me ...have proven that we need him around to keep the flow moving.<br>
</i></pre><pre><i>I'm no Axel, but I am one of his biggest fans.<br><br></i></pre><pre><i>Back on point:<br></i><br><i>>Since RPM Fusion has a policy not to replace currently shipping packages we're at an impasse!<br>
</i></pre><pre><i>RPMfusion already has other qt4's in the RPMfusion repo Richard. As you know, they just don't work(very well), even though they sit there...like they might.<br>Fact is:<br>Axels 4.7 worked. Up to the change upstream in mythtv.<br>
It just needed a few minor things addressed, which has been done.<br> This and Sics work are the basis for a now working qt48 kit on el6. Without any openGL or Webkit or slow mythweb related issues.<br></i></pre><pre><br>
<i><i>>Since RPM Fusion has a policy not to replace currently shipping packages we're at an impasse.<br><br>I'm sorry again Richard. ....<br>No direct disrespect intended as I like you and all the peps at RPMfusion and Axels group. Even though I only know you by reading posts/notes from your work!<br>
</i></i><br>In all fairness, <br><br><i><i><i>This is by choice or technical decision based solely on the decision making processes' of the past and is now technically a MOOT point.</i><br></i><br></i></pre><pre><i>If any of you don't believe me or you or anyone at RPMf want to engage. <br>
Email me. <br>I will not debate these facts and my personal opinions no more than this on this point here.<br></i></pre><pre><i>Lets fix what needs to be fixed as FSF loving people and drop the non-relevant explanations from the past.<br>
<br><br><br>I'm not religious, but here's My philosophy, Regarding the ongoing pissing contest between RPMf and ATrpms.<br></i></pre><pre><i>It's not helping either or both sides.<br></i></pre><pre><i>Consider this:<br>
I got a big ego and I think highly of myself ...but </i><i>Stubbornness and Rigidity is my default nature! </i></pre><pre><i>I'm faulty. I have made mistakes. I'm not perfect. I have done things I'm not proud of. I have even bullied and been bullied.<br>
</i><i>I value intelligence though I am sometimes inconsistent and contradictory. I value respect, even though I have disrespected many.<br></i></pre><pre><i><br>These things do not make, nor define me though, because I adapt and continue to learn, instead of becoming rigid and more stubborn.<br>
</i></pre><pre><i><br></i></pre><pre><i>We are all human!<br>Lets put it all together and just make it work. RPMf and ATrpms can both PISS very, very , very far. We really don't need to prove it.</i></pre><pre><i><br>
Sincerely,<br></i></pre><pre><i></i></pre><pre><i>Kelsie Flynn<br><a href="mailto:Kelsie@elmythos.org">Kelsie@elmythos.org</a><br><br><br></i></pre><pre><i>ELmythOS.org<br></i></pre><pre><i>MythPidora.org<br><br></i></pre>
<pre><i></i></pre><pre><i><br></i></pre><pre><br></pre><br></div></div></div></div></div></div></div>