Custom Search
|
Date: December 31, 2006
From: "Paulo Cavalcanti" <promac@xxxxxxxxx>
In-reply-to:
<20061231173825.GA18572@xxxxxxxxxxx>
References:
<68720af30612301501v7b7b9545oa7115bddb6e6b479@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20061231034952.GA396@xxxxxxxxxxx> <68720af30612310133i15385541w4db6e6e2d19ded09@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <68720af30612310606o599e5c7cmbfc19f3ddf55533e@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20061231155809.GE396@xxxxxxxxxxx> <68720af30612310807n15fb8194t7bf8aa92a138b27f@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20061231173825.GA18572@xxxxxxxxxxx>
On Sun, Dec 31, 2006 at 02:07:38PM -0200, Paulo Cavalcanti wrote:
> On 12/31/06, Axel Thimm <Axel.Thimm@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >On Sun, Dec 31, 2006 at 12:06:30PM -0200, Paulo Cavalcanti wrote:
> >> These were the packages pulled from freshrpms for vlc. I think
> >> the list is smaller now, than it used to be sometime ago.
> >>
> >> gsm-1.0.10-6.fc5.i386.rpm
> >> libdvbpsi-0.1.5-2.fc5.i386.rpm
> >> libdvbpsi-devel-0.1.5-2.fc5.i386.rpm
> >> libdvdnav-0.1.10-3.fc5.i386.rpm
> >> libopendaap-0.4.0-2.fc5.i386.rpm
> >> libopendaap-devel-0.4.0-2.fc5.i386.rpm
> >> vcdimager-0.7.23-4.fc5.i386.rpm
> >> vcdimager-devel-0.7.23-4.fc5.i386.rpm
> >
> >Where are all the "fr" tags?
>
> Matthias is no longer using them, it has been sometime now.
Do you know why? It (wrongly) suggest the packages are coming from
Fedora proper. I even had a bug report about a package not existing in
Fedora that now I think may be with freshrpms.
Date: December 31, 2006
From: Axel Thimm <Axel.Thimm@xxxxxxxxxx>
In-reply-to:
<68720af30612310807n15fb8194t7bf8aa92a138b27f@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
References:
<68720af30612301501v7b7b9545oa7115bddb6e6b479@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20061231034952.GA396@xxxxxxxxxxx> <68720af30612310133i15385541w4db6e6e2d19ded09@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <68720af30612310606o599e5c7cmbfc19f3ddf55533e@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20061231155809.GE396@xxxxxxxxxxx> <68720af30612310807n15fb8194t7bf8aa92a138b27f@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
On Sun, Dec 31, 2006 at 02:07:38PM -0200, Paulo Cavalcanti wrote: > On 12/31/06, Axel Thimm <Axel.Thimm@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >On Sun, Dec 31, 2006 at 12:06:30PM -0200, Paulo Cavalcanti wrote: > >> These were the packages pulled from freshrpms for vlc. I think > >> the list is smaller now, than it used to be sometime ago. > >> > >> gsm-1.0.10-6.fc5.i386.rpm > >> libdvbpsi-0.1.5-2.fc5.i386.rpm > >> libdvbpsi-devel-0.1.5-2.fc5.i386.rpm > >> libdvdnav-0.1.10-3.fc5.i386.rpm > >> libopendaap-0.4.0-2.fc5.i386.rpm > >> libopendaap-devel-0.4.0-2.fc5.i386.rpm > >> vcdimager-0.7.23-4.fc5.i386.rpm > >> vcdimager-devel-0.7.23-4.fc5.i386.rpm > > > >Where are all the "fr" tags? > > Matthias is no longer using them, it has been sometime now. Do you know why? It (wrongly) suggest the packages are coming from Fedora proper. I even had a bug report about a package not existing in Fedora that now I think may be with freshrpms. -- Axel.Thimm at ATrpms.net
pgpqpOq9FfGRJ.pgp
Description: PGP signature
Date: December 31, 2006
From: "Paulo Cavalcanti" <promac@xxxxxxxxx>
In-reply-to:
<20061231155809.GE396@xxxxxxxxxxx>
References:
<68720af30612301501v7b7b9545oa7115bddb6e6b479@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20061231034952.GA396@xxxxxxxxxxx> <68720af30612310133i15385541w4db6e6e2d19ded09@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <68720af30612310606o599e5c7cmbfc19f3ddf55533e@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20061231155809.GE396@xxxxxxxxxxx>
On Sun, Dec 31, 2006 at 12:06:30PM -0200, Paulo Cavalcanti wrote:
> Yehp, the thing works.
>
> I build for FC5 in a FC6 system, vlc and xpaint.
> It takes some time to fix the missing build requirements,
> but at the end the rpm is created.
>
> These were the packages pulled from freshrpms for vlc. I think the list is
> smaller now, than it used to be sometime ago.
>
> gsm-1.0.10-6.fc5.i386.rpm
> libdvbpsi-0.1.5-2.fc5.i386.rpm
> libdvbpsi-devel-0.1.5-2.fc5.i386.rpm
> libdvdnav-0.1.10-3.fc5.i386.rpm
> libopendaap-0.4.0-2.fc5.i386.rpm
> libopendaap-devel-0.4.0-2.fc5.i386.rpm
> vcdimager-0.7.23-4.fc5.i386.rpm
> vcdimager-devel-0.7.23-4.fc5.i386.rpm
Where are all the "fr" tags?
Date: December 31, 2006
From: Axel Thimm <Axel.Thimm@xxxxxxxxxx>
In-reply-to:
<68720af30612310606o599e5c7cmbfc19f3ddf55533e@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
References:
<68720af30612301501v7b7b9545oa7115bddb6e6b479@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20061231034952.GA396@xxxxxxxxxxx> <68720af30612310133i15385541w4db6e6e2d19ded09@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <68720af30612310606o599e5c7cmbfc19f3ddf55533e@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
On Sun, Dec 31, 2006 at 12:06:30PM -0200, Paulo Cavalcanti wrote: > Yehp, the thing works. > > I build for FC5 in a FC6 system, vlc and xpaint. > It takes some time to fix the missing build requirements, > but at the end the rpm is created. > > These were the packages pulled from freshrpms for vlc. I think the list is > smaller now, than it used to be sometime ago. > > gsm-1.0.10-6.fc5.i386.rpm > libdvbpsi-0.1.5-2.fc5.i386.rpm > libdvbpsi-devel-0.1.5-2.fc5.i386.rpm > libdvdnav-0.1.10-3.fc5.i386.rpm > libopendaap-0.4.0-2.fc5.i386.rpm > libopendaap-devel-0.4.0-2.fc5.i386.rpm > vcdimager-0.7.23-4.fc5.i386.rpm > vcdimager-devel-0.7.23-4.fc5.i386.rpm Where are all the "fr" tags? > I did not investigate too much, but it seems to me that you only have a > libpostproc51. It would be easier if it supplied "libpostproc" also libpostproc51 is part of ffmpeg - it is part of the runtime, if you want to build against it use BuildRequires: ffmpeg-devel. > Axel, thank you for all the help, and have a very nice new year. > I wish that 2007 bring for us all the peace need. Thanks, have a nice entry into 2007, too! > /Paulo Roma. > > > On 12/31/06, Paulo Cavalcanti <promac@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > >My interest on mock is because it is the environment used by Fedora > >developers, as far as I now. It takes more than 10 min to set up the > >chroot environment, and next time one tries to rebuilt a package, it > >deletes everything and starts from zero. An odd default, in my opinion. > >Another thing is that the chroot must be in /var/lib/mock. Of course, > >it is possible to bind another mount point to it. > > > >On the other hand, it has pre-created cfg files for all fedora flavors. I > >think one may have a 64 bit computer (and 64 bit fedora) and build 32 bit > >packages this way. > > > >What I would like to know is if I can build vlc using only ATrpms > >packages. > >I have some freshrpms video packages just to be able to build vlc, but > >maybe this is not necessary anymore. > > > >/Paulo Roma. > > > >On 12/31/06, Axel Thimm <Axel.Thimm@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> > >> On Sat, Dec 30, 2006 at 09:01:40PM -0200, Paulo Cavalcanti wrote: > >> > Hi, Axel > >> > > >> > what is the simplest way to know if a rpm can be built > >> > with only ATrpms packages? > >> > > >> > I thought of using mock with atrpms repo included. > >> > Is this enough? > >> > >> I haven't used mock myself, but I think that would be enough. Any > >> chroot manager that only installs the BuildRequires (and recursive > >> dependencies) should be enough. I'm using a self-brewn set of sh > >> scripts that use apt to manage the chroot. > >> > >> > Can I use mock to build a package for any fedora version, using the > >> > appropriate cfg file? The only weird thing is that it erases the > >> > chroot by default, forcing the use of the option --no-clean in every > >> > build. > >> > >> As said I don't know details of mock. I once tried to use mach, then > >> gave up on it and started to run simple scripts to (de)populate the > >> chroot. If there is interest I can shape them up and open them up for > >> further development. > >> > >> > >> > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > atrpms-devel mailing list > atrpms-devel@xxxxxxxxxx > http://lists.atrpms.net/mailman/listinfo/atrpms-devel -- Axel.Thimm at ATrpms.net
pgpIHSFnyLqrA.pgp
Description: PGP signature
Date: December 31, 2006
From: Axel Thimm <Axel.Thimm@xxxxxxxxxx>
In-reply-to:
<68720af30612310133i15385541w4db6e6e2d19ded09@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
References:
<68720af30612301501v7b7b9545oa7115bddb6e6b479@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20061231034952.GA396@xxxxxxxxxxx> <68720af30612310133i15385541w4db6e6e2d19ded09@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
On Sun, Dec 31, 2006 at 07:33:45AM -0200, Paulo Cavalcanti wrote: > My interest on mock is because it is the environment used by Fedora > developers, as far as I now. Yes, but the packages are designed to build in any environment satisfying the build dependencies. This can be a chroot environment as populated by moch/mach/dar or even simply smart/apt/yum (I'm using apt). > On the other hand, it has pre-created cfg files for all fedora flavors. I > think one may have a 64 bit computer (and 64 bit fedora) and build 32 bit > packages this way. Yes, you can do that in any chroot manager as long as there is kernel support (which for any x86_64 Fedora/RHEL exists). -- Axel.Thimm at ATrpms.net
pgp57U4U86bNe.pgp
Description: PGP signature
Date: December 31, 2006
From: Tako Schotanus <quintesse@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
I was running "smart fix" and encountered what seems to be a conflict between "libpcsclite1" from ATrpms and "pcsc-lite-libs" from RedHat: error: file /usr/lib/libpcsclite.so.1.0.0 from install of libpcsclite1-1.3.2-8.fc6.at conflicts with file from package pcsc-lite-libs-1.3.1-7 Cheers, -Tako
Date: December 31, 2006
From: "Paulo Cavalcanti" <promac@xxxxxxxxx>
In-reply-to:
<68720af30612310133i15385541w4db6e6e2d19ded09@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
References:
<68720af30612301501v7b7b9545oa7115bddb6e6b479@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20061231034952.GA396@xxxxxxxxxxx> <68720af30612310133i15385541w4db6e6e2d19ded09@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
My interest on mock is because it is the environment used by Fedora
developers, as far as I now. It takes more than 10 min to set up the
chroot environment, and next time one tries to rebuilt a package, it deletes everything and starts from zero. An odd default, in my opinion.
Another thing is that the chroot must be in /var/lib/mock. Of course,
it is possible to bind another mount point to it.
On the other hand, it has pre-created cfg files for all fedora flavors. I think one may have a 64 bit computer (and 64 bit fedora) and build 32 bit packages this way.
What I would like to know is if I can build vlc using only ATrpms packages.
I have some freshrpms video packages just to be able to build vlc, but
maybe this is not necessary anymore.
/Paulo Roma.
On 12/31/06, Axel Thimm <Axel.Thimm@xxxxxxxxxx > wrote:On Sat, Dec 30, 2006 at 09:01:40PM -0200, Paulo Cavalcanti wrote:
> Hi, Axel
>
> what is the simplest way to know if a rpm can be built
> with only ATrpms packages?
>
> I thought of using mock with atrpms repo included.
> Is this enough?
I haven't used mock myself, but I think that would be enough. Any
chroot manager that only installs the BuildRequires (and recursive
dependencies) should be enough. I'm using a self-brewn set of sh
scripts that use apt to manage the chroot.
> Can I use mock to build a package for any fedora version, using the
> appropriate cfg file? The only weird thing is that it erases the
> chroot by default, forcing the use of the option --no-clean in every
> build.
As said I don't know details of mock. I once tried to use mach, then
gave up on it and started to run simple scripts to (de)populate the
chroot. If there is interest I can shape them up and open them up for
further development.
--
Axel.Thimm at ATrpms.net--
Paulo Roma Cavalcanti
LCG - UFRJ
Date: December 31, 2006
From: "Paulo Cavalcanti" <promac@xxxxxxxxx>
In-reply-to:
<20061231034952.GA396@xxxxxxxxxxx>
References:
<68720af30612301501v7b7b9545oa7115bddb6e6b479@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20061231034952.GA396@xxxxxxxxxxx>
On Sat, Dec 30, 2006 at 09:01:40PM -0200, Paulo Cavalcanti wrote:
> Hi, Axel
>
> what is the simplest way to know if a rpm can be built
> with only ATrpms packages?
>
> I thought of using mock with atrpms repo included.
> Is this enough?
I haven't used mock myself, but I think that would be enough. Any
chroot manager that only installs the BuildRequires (and recursive
dependencies) should be enough. I'm using a self-brewn set of sh
scripts that use apt to manage the chroot.
> Can I use mock to build a package for any fedora version, using the
> appropriate cfg file? The only weird thing is that it erases the
> chroot by default, forcing the use of the option --no-clean in every
> build.
As said I don't know details of mock. I once tried to use mach, then
gave up on it and started to run simple scripts to (de)populate the
chroot. If there is interest I can shape them up and open them up for
further development.
--
Axel.Thimm at ATrpms.net
Date: December 31, 2006
From: Axel Thimm <Axel.Thimm@xxxxxxxxxx>
In-reply-to:
<68720af30612301501v7b7b9545oa7115bddb6e6b479@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
References:
<68720af30612301501v7b7b9545oa7115bddb6e6b479@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
On Sat, Dec 30, 2006 at 09:01:40PM -0200, Paulo Cavalcanti wrote: > Hi, Axel > > what is the simplest way to know if a rpm can be built > with only ATrpms packages? > > I thought of using mock with atrpms repo included. > Is this enough? I haven't used mock myself, but I think that would be enough. Any chroot manager that only installs the BuildRequires (and recursive dependencies) should be enough. I'm using a self-brewn set of sh scripts that use apt to manage the chroot. > Can I use mock to build a package for any fedora version, using the > appropriate cfg file? The only weird thing is that it erases the > chroot by default, forcing the use of the option --no-clean in every > build. As said I don't know details of mock. I once tried to use mach, then gave up on it and started to run simple scripts to (de)populate the chroot. If there is interest I can shape them up and open them up for further development. -- Axel.Thimm at ATrpms.net
pgp0r12RFMkcp.pgp
Description: PGP signature
Date: December 30, 2006
From: "Paulo Cavalcanti" <promac@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: December 04, 2006
From: Axel Thimm <Axel.Thimm@xxxxxxxxxx>
In-reply-to:
<64b14b300612040734v6e269d09q5d83b36f6e724316@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
References:
<64b14b300612040734v6e269d09q5d83b36f6e724316@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
On Mon, Dec 04, 2006 at 04:34:27PM +0100, Valent Turkovic wrote: > Hi, > first to say hello because this is my first mail on atrpms mailing lists. > > I'm trying tu use xvidcap installed from atrpms repository and I'm > haveing problems with it. > > It should create video captre from linux desktop, but it doesn't do > that. It only uses single-frame capture to xwd files, and not mpeg as > it should also. > > The answer i got from the developer is: > "Very probably the binary you have installed was not linked against > libavcodec. Therefore I can only recommend to install from source. " > from this link: > http://sourceforge.net/forum/message.php?msg_id=4042732 In this thread you wrote: > I installed x/gvidcap 1.1.4 and I can't get it to recort to mpeg > file. Only option I get is single xwd files. > > # gvidcap --format-help > gvidcap, ver 1.1.4p1, (c) rasca, berlin 1997,98,99, khb (c) 2003,04,05,06 > Available file formats: xwd > Specify 'auto' to force file format auto-detection. But I get > gvidcap, ver 1.1.4p1, (c) rasca, berlin 1997,98,99, khb (c) 2003,04,05,06 > Available file formats: xwd, pgm, ppm, png, jpg, avi, divx, asf, flv1, swf, > dv, mpeg, mpeg2, mov > Specify 'auto' to force file format auto-detection. -- Axel.Thimm at ATrpms.net
pgp3flZNHLOCO.pgp
Description: PGP signature
Date: December 04, 2006
From: "Valent Turkovic" <valent.turkovic@xxxxxxxxx>
Hi, first to say hello because this is my first mail on atrpms mailing lists. I'm trying tu use xvidcap installed from atrpms repository and I'm haveing problems with it. It should create video captre from linux desktop, but it doesn't do that. It only uses single-frame capture to xwd files, and not mpeg as it should also. The answer i got from the developer is: "Very probably the binary you have installed was not linked against libavcodec. Therefore I can only recommend to install from source. " from this link: http://sourceforge.net/forum/message.php?msg_id=4042732 I also found one nice resource on how to compile xvidcap so I'll link it here in hope it helps: http://kev.coolcavemen.com/2005/06/howto-compile-and-use-xvidcap/ Please make new xvidcap with mpeg functionality available and than you for your great work. Valent. -- http://kernelreloaded.blog385.com/ linux, blog, anime, spirituality, windsurf, wireless registered as user #367004 with the Linux Counter, http://counter.li.org. ICQ: 2125241 Skype: valent.turkovic
Date: December 01, 2006
From: "Paulo Cavalcanti" <promac@xxxxxxxxx>
In-reply-to:
<38af3d670611232318x374582b8v6774d781e58687f1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
References:
<38af3d670611232318x374582b8v6774d781e58687f1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Apenas para a sua informação, o seu script de gerar regras de udev para o lirc funcionou comigo. Ele gerou a seguinte regra:
KERNEL=="event*", SYSFS{modalias}=="pci:v0000109Ed0000036Esv00001554sd00004011bc04sc00i00", SYMLINK+="input/lirc"
Minha placa é uma pixelview (nem sei o modelo). Quando eu dou um modprobe no bttv, ele funciona com card=70 ou card=72 (parece que tanto faz), e tuner=43. No /proc/bus/input/devices tem o seguinte:
I: Bus=0001 Vendor=1554 Product=4011 Version=0001
N: Name="bttv IR (card=72)"
P: Phys=pci-0000:00:05.0/ir0
S: Sysfs=/class/input/input4
H: Handlers=kbd event3
B: EV=100003
B: KEY=2c0814 100004 0 0 0 4 2008000 2090 2001 1e0000 4400 0 ffc
(se eu tiver colocado card=70 na hora do modprobe, o número 72, na segunda linha, vira 70; o "input4" varia)
Não sei se isso é útil pra você, espero que seja. Eu aqui já estou usando o lirc sem o módulo do lirc, apenas com a interface do kernel. Isso resolveu o problema de eu apertar uma tecla e gerar dois eventos (por exemplo, eu apertava a tecla >> do remoto e o lirc mandava o mplayer andar 10 segundos pra frente (pois eu associei >> ao comando seek 10) e além disso, o programa ativo recebia a tecla "+" ; caso esse programa fosse o mplayer, ele mudava o sincronismo áudio e vídeo).
[]'s
--
Software is like sex: it is better when it is free - Linus Torvalds
_______________________________________________
atrpms-devel mailing list
atrpms-devel@xxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.atrpms.net/mailman/listinfo/atrpms-devel