[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]

Re: gstreamer plugins and Fedora Extras



On Tue, 2005-06-28 at 11:38 +0200, Thomas Vander Stichele wrote:
> Hi Michael,
> 
> 
> > It was submitted before I knew of your active plans to continue
> > packaging plugins for livna, back when I thought
> > "gstreamer-plugins-extras" for Fedora Extras and
> > "gstreamer-plugins-nonfree" for rpm.livna.org was a good idea (which I
> > don't anymore, your naming structure is better)
> 
> Matthias Saou and I discussed and decided on names we thought were
> sensible for packaging GStreamer plugins a long time ago; we wanted to
> use the same names to mean the same things since it's already confusing
> enough for people :)
> 
> At that time (this was before the name "Extras" was decided for fedora's
> add-on repos), we decided to:
> - have gstreamer-plugins be the same list of plugins FC ships
> - use gstreamer-plugins-audio and gstreamer-plugins-video for plugins
> that aren't in FC for some reason, but are still ok to ship
> - use gstreamer-plugins-extra-audio and gstreamer-plugins-extra-video
> and gstreamer-plugins-extra-dvd for the "questionable" stuff.
> 
> I would prefer to keep this naming structure completely since we already
> agreed on it in the past.

That sounds like the best way to do it to me.

> 
> > Michael Schwendt has just approved the gstreamer-plugins-extras package
> > that I submitted, but I don't want to upload it to CVS there without
> > discussing it with you first, since you are both a gstreamer developer
> > and a packager. I don't want the package to create a conflict that will
> > have to be resolved in the future.
> 
> Thanks for being so kind; yes, I do believe that this would create a
> conflict.  I still am a bit confused myself on what the repercussions
> are for extras and livna's upgrade policy; now it seems that 3 sets of
> source rpms need to be maintained from the
> same-versioned-but-not-quite-the-same tarball to produce these packages.
> 
> > I do want the package in Extras, particularly the libvisual plugin -
> > which totem makes nice use of (and I'm hoping one day Rhythmbox will as
> > well at some point)
> 
> I agree, I want it in as well.
> 
> How should we proceed ? Shall I counterpropose a spec taking the
> improvements from your spec file ?

Yes - that would be great - I'm going out of town for a few days, but
I'd happily review it so it can get approved and into extras.

The only interesting thing I noticed when working on it is that the
trigger script for gst-register is needed when libvisual-plugins is
updated or else new plugins are not available. Currently the
libvisual-plugins package doesn't package all available plugins - one
needs a gcc4 patch, and others build but cause totem to fail when
selected, so they are disabled - I don't remember that happening in FC3
but that was an older version of libvisual-plugins and gcc 3.4 -
hopefully the problem plugins can be fixed, but gst-register needs to be
run when that package is updated.


[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]