[opensuse-packaging] multimedia (and subrepos) project config
Hi, packages in multimedia:apps are built against libGLEW1_7 but this one it's not available in this repo - ie. clementine player. We need some multimedia:apps project config fix because we have now: unresolvable: have choice for libsndfile.so.1 needed by libpulse0: libsndfile1 libsndfile, have choice for libsndfile.so.1(libsndfile.so.1.0) needed by libpulse0: libsndfile1 libsndfile (at least for openSUSE12.1), something like: | Prefer: libsndfile1 to build against newer library version. Also we need to ship runtime dependecies for apps in multimedia:app, because using this repo without multimedia:libs is not possible now. -- Pozdrawiam / Best regards, Mariusz Fik openSUSE Community Member GPG: 5FCE 7241 B3B9 32FD 455B C30E 42D6 6C88 9E83 7C3D
Am Montag, 2. Januar 2012, 23:09:59 schrieb Mariusz Fik:
Hi,
packages in multimedia:apps are built against libGLEW1_7 but this one it's not available in this repo - ie. clementine player.
We need some multimedia:apps project config fix because we have now: unresolvable: have choice for libsndfile.so.1 needed by libpulse0: libsndfile1 libsndfile, have choice for libsndfile.so.1(libsndfile.so.1.0) needed by libpulse0: libsndfile1 libsndfile (at least for openSUSE12.1), something
multimedia:apps is configured to be used together with multimedia:libs. Is it working when adding it ? Dunno why there is a splitted project when both are required anyway though ... like:
| Prefer: libsndfile1
to build against newer library version. Also we need to ship runtime dependecies for apps in multimedia:app, because using this repo without multimedia:libs is not possible now. -- Adrian Schroeter SUSE Linux Products GmbH email: adrian@suse.de
-- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+owner@opensuse.org
On 01/02/2012 11:09 PM, Mariusz Fik wrote:
Also we need to ship runtime dependecies for apps in multimedia:app, because using this repo without multimedia:libs is not possible now.
Does the split between multimedia:apps and multimedia:libs still make sense? Obviously the apps are not usable without libs repo added as well, because they build against these packages. I would join both projects into one called "multimedia". Any comments on that? -- Best Regards / S pozdravom, Pavol RUSNAK SUSE LINUX, s.r.o openSUSE Boosters Team Lihovarska 1060/12 PGP 0xA6917144 19000 Praha 9 prusnak[at]opensuse.org Czech Republic -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+owner@opensuse.org
On Mon, 2012-01-16 at 16:40 +0100, Pavol Rusnak wrote:
On 01/02/2012 11:09 PM, Mariusz Fik wrote:
Also we need to ship runtime dependecies for apps in multimedia:app, because using this repo without multimedia:libs is not possible now.
Does the split between multimedia:apps and multimedia:libs still make sense? Obviously the apps are not usable without libs repo added as well, because they build against these packages. I would join both projects into one called "multimedia". Any comments on that?
Sounds sane to me, except one thing that needs to be made clear: Packages in multimedia:* should be handled with great care, for external repositories link to the sources there. So the list of 'maintainers' should probably not grow to an unmaintainable long list of non-active users. Better keep it to a low number of active / versed reviewers. Dominique -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+owner@opensuse.org
On 2012-01-16 16:47:43 (+0100), Dimstar / Dominique Leuenberger
On Mon, 2012-01-16 at 16:40 +0100, Pavol Rusnak wrote:
On 01/02/2012 11:09 PM, Mariusz Fik wrote:
Also we need to ship runtime dependecies for apps in multimedia:app, because using this repo without multimedia:libs is not possible now.
Does the split between multimedia:apps and multimedia:libs still make sense? Obviously the apps are not usable without libs repo added as well, because they build against these packages. I would join both projects into one called "multimedia". Any comments on that?
Sounds sane to me, except one thing that needs to be made clear: Packages in multimedia:* should be handled with great care, for external repositories link to the sources there.
So the list of 'maintainers' should probably not grow to an unmaintainable long list of non-active users. Better keep it to a low number of active / versed reviewers.
Yes please, and thanks for bringing that up Dominique. Specifically and at the very least, Packman is linking about 25 packages from m:libs and m:apps. Actually, several packages have - either been moved from Packman to there, to make them available for other packages on build.o.o, especially when they don't have any patent crippling stuff in them or, when they do, build them without e.g. libmad but include the conditionals to build them with e.g. libmad support when linked in Packman - been created there without contacting any of us at Packman at all, and we had to play catch-up by replacing our packages with links to multimedia:* The latter is significantly annoying, because it causes issues for users and duplication of work. So please, pretty please, check first whether the package exists in Packman (either search in our OBS at https://pmbs.links2linux.org, or using our package web interface at http://packman.links2linux.org) and get in touch with us to coordinate (mail to packman@links2linux.org or poke us on #packman on freenode). We might be a bit slow to respond, because we are way too few people to handle so many packages (help is more than welcome), but we're doing our best. We don't mind moving packages to build.o.o when they are handled with great care (e.g. please stop renaming packages there like crazy, especially without the Provides and Obsoletes to handle released distributions in the field gracefully, has happened way too often) and we would very much welcome more packagers to get an account in our OBS instance to check whether their changes break stuff in Packman. And, even better, fix it in that case. Needless to remind everyone how important the Packman repository is for a very large percentage of the people who use openSUSE on their desktops. PS: I'm not whining, I'm not angry, but some very poor packaging in the multimedia:* repos has created an insane amount of work and issues for the very small team at Packman as well as for our users -- either the multimedia repository is handled with great care, or we will have no choice but to un-link everything and start duplicating work again, which is neither good for packagers nor for users cheers -- -o) Pascal Bleser /\\ http://opensuse.org -- we haz green _\_v http://fosdem.org -- we haz conf
On 16 January 2012 21:01, Pascal Bleser
We don't mind moving packages to build.o.o when they are handled with great care (e.g. please stop renaming packages there like crazy, especially without the Provides and Obsoletes to handle released distributions in the field gracefully, has happened way too often) and we would very much welcome more packagers to get
The Provides/Obsoletes cases are not just a problem for Packman. They are obvious important bugs that will brake updates. So, if you are not fixing them already when you find them, a list would be more than welcome. -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+owner@opensuse.org
On 01/16/2012 04:40 PM, Pavol Rusnak wrote:
On 01/02/2012 11:09 PM, Mariusz Fik wrote:
Also we need to ship runtime dependecies for apps in multimedia:app, because using this repo without multimedia:libs is not possible now.
Does the split between multimedia:apps and multimedia:libs still make sense? Obviously the apps are not usable without libs repo added as well, because they build against these packages. I would join both projects into one called "multimedia". Any comments on that? Sounds like a great idea. Maybe I'm missing something, but why not move multimedia:libs into devel:libraries:c_c++? -- Viele Grüße, Sascha Peilicke
On Tue, 2012-01-17 at 09:39 +0100, Sascha Peilicke wrote:
Does the split between multimedia:apps and multimedia:libs still make sense? Obviously the apps are not usable without libs repo added as well, because they build against these packages. I would join both projects into one called "multimedia". Any comments on that? Sounds like a great idea. Maybe I'm missing something, but why not move multimedia:libs into devel:libraries:c_c++?
that would be very counter-productive, considering that most of multimedia:apps depends on libraries from multimedia:libs => having those libs in devel:libraries:c_c++ would just move the problem to another repository; the idea is to merge the two repos (multimedia:{apps,libs}) into one, so the users won't run into issues all the time. Dominique -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+owner@opensuse.org
Am Dienstag, 17. Januar 2012, 14:16:00 schrieb Dimstar / Dominique Leuenberger:
On Tue, 2012-01-17 at 09:39 +0100, Sascha Peilicke wrote:
Does the split between multimedia:apps and multimedia:libs still make sense? Obviously the apps are not usable without libs repo added as well, because they build against these packages. I would join both projects into one called "multimedia". Any comments on that?
Sounds like a great idea. Maybe I'm missing something, but why not move multimedia:libs into devel:libraries:c_c++?
that would be very counter-productive, considering that most of multimedia:apps depends on libraries from multimedia:libs => having those libs in devel:libraries:c_c++ would just move the problem to another repository;
the idea is to merge the two repos (multimedia:{apps,libs}) into one, so the users won't run into issues all the time.
The original idea of having the apps seperate was to make it possible to install them at all for the average user. When you try to update to libs you run quite often in dependency problems. However this makes of course only sense when :apps is building also against the distros directly, which it doesn't atm. does no one have problems on a plain 11.3 or 11.4 with that repo atm ? -- Adrian Schroeter SUSE Linux Products GmbH email: adrian@suse.de -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+owner@opensuse.org
Am Mon, 16 Jan 2012 16:40:04 +0100
schrieb Pavol Rusnak
On 01/02/2012 11:09 PM, Mariusz Fik wrote:
Also we need to ship runtime dependecies for apps in multimedia:app, because using this repo without multimedia:libs is not possible now.
Does the split between multimedia:apps and multimedia:libs still make sense? Obviously the apps are not usable without libs repo added as well, because they build against these packages. I would join both projects into one called "multimedia". Any comments on that?
The first idea was something like: multimedia:audio multimedia:photo multimedia:video but this never really happen, why? Yes, most video software plays audio also ;) Than you need only the libs. I think one multimedia or the old one is better than splitting it in libs and apps. -- Oliver Bengs Dortmunder Str. 27 51065 Köln -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+owner@opensuse.org
participants (8)
-
Adrian Schröter -
Cristian Morales Vega -
Dimstar / Dominique Leuenberger -
Mariusz Fik -
Oliver Bengs -
Pascal Bleser -
Pavol Rusnak -
Sascha Peilicke