[Fedora Robotics] Player 3.0.0 packages

[Rich Mattes]

It looks like boost got split up into a lot of sub-packages for F13, see 
http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/buildinfo?buildID=136696.  It looks 
like if you add the package boost-thread for the F13 we should be ok.

I'm slowly getting gearbox in shape.  I have a pending review request, 
but I've been coordinating with their developers recently.  I shared the 
changes i made to cmake to install to lib64, but that changes a few of 
the config files they have.  I pointed it out to them, and they said 
they'll go ahead and fix it.  I also got them to clarify their licenses, 
so I have to update that in my .spec too.  Once they fix the cmake 
stuff, I might try making a package based on a subversion snapshot until 
they come out with a new release.  I also have a few packaging 
questions.  I asked the fedora-packaging list this week, but they 
haven't responded. 
(http://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-packaging/2009-November/msg00002.html)  
I'll try pinging them again today.

Now that the Player package is in, I'll start working on Stage.

Rich

Tim Niemueller wrote:
> Hi all.
>
> The Player 3.0.0 packages have been committed, built (for F-11, F-12 and
> F-13), and submitted to update-testing for F-11, go have a look.
>
> Based on input of the recent thread the config files are still in
> /etc/player. Arguments for and against it weighing out pretty even my
> reasoning is that anywhere in /etc is where most people will start
> looking for config files, even if they are meant to be templates, and
> especially if they used the Player 2 package already. After all, the
> Apache config for example is also a giant template for your stuff...
>
> The package does not build for the devel branch (F-13) at the moment
> (cf. https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/buildinfo?buildID=140037). See
> the build.log of the failed tasks. It says it cannot find boost_thread
> while boost-devel is included in the BuildRequires (and according to
> root.log it's installed just fine). Need to have a closer look what the
> problem is, suggestions welcome.
>
> Rich: sorry, took longer for time constraint reasons to get the stuff
> pushed. How are your review requests/sponsoring doing?
>
> Regards,
> 	Tim
>
>