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
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
On 07.11.2009 21:45, Rich Mattes wrote:
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.
The F-12 package is also split, but the -devel subpackage works for all of the other packages. Will have a closer look if that changed for F-13.
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,
Good!
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
Yes, good idea. Remember the 0.x format for the release number.
questions. I asked the fedora-packaging list this week, but they haven't responded.
Ok, here are answers from my experience, though you can probably get more authoritative answers on the mailing list: 1) Yes, all normal libraries go to /usr/lib. Subdirs in libdir are generally only used e.g. for plugins. Libs you link to regularly go to the libdir. 1a) and 2) I'd consider this a bug/bad choice in the upstream project. Is it possible, does it make sense and could they be convinced to follow the "standard" behavior?
(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.
Ok, maybe it's not yet in the buildroot, so either the Player package has to go stable first (please all help and mark the package is working at https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/F11/FEDORA-2009-11127) or I need to request tagging. Let me know when koji builds do not work, yet, or pull in older Player versions (check root.log).
Tim
Hi All,
I updated gearbox to 9.07-3, and fixed a bunch of issues relating to install directories. I also fixed an issue that prevented the ppc build. Now the only unsupported arch is ppc64, because of a missing dependency. We can probably enable ppc in Player now, I only disabled it because of issues with Gearbox (which Player will depend on at some point). And please feel free to review the package: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=530251
I've got some trouble with my Stage 3.2.1 package. By default, libstageplugin only builds a target called "stageplugin.so", which installs to ${prefix}/lib. I changed the cmake files around to generate a libstageplugin.so and libstageplugin.so.3.2.1. These are in the -devel and vanilla pacakges, respectively. Player is now having trouble loading a library with a version number attached to it, but has no problems loading libstageplugin.so (which means the stage-devel file is needed to make player and stage play nice). I can either remove the version information from libstageplugin.so.3.2.1, or change all of the config files to load "libstageplugin.so.3.2.1". I was also thinking we might be able to create a /usr/lib/player, and have unversioned player plugins live there by default. Then we could patch player to look there when it tries to load plugin libraries. This could help in the future if we try to seperate libplayerdrivers.so into a bunch of smaller pieces, but there's probably other issues we'll have to deal with if we try that.
Let me know if you have any ideas on how I should handle this.
Rich
Hi all.
I have revoked the update package and re-pushed with a minor fix: the devel subpackage now obsoletes the (no longer available) static subpackage which used to contain static libraries which are no longer produced. This is required to get the otherwise stale static subpackage removed form the update repositories.
Please try the current version and comment at https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/player-3.0.0-4.fc11 and https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/player-3.0.0-4.fc12
Tim
robotics@lists.fedoraproject.org