Lightworks video editor
by Michael Hall
The Lightworks video editor becomes available for Linux tomorrow
supposedly, but only for Ubuntu according to the developers.
http://www.lwks.com
Lightworks is a powerful, cross-platform professional video editor that has
been used to cut many big-name movies over the years. It is "sort of" open
source, not really at this point. But the point is that this is a really
important piece of software for anyone wanting to edit video or even full
4K movies ... current Linux video editors are buggy and unreliable,
Lightworks is true professional grade.
So, my question is, assuming that Lightworks is released as some kind of
.deb package, how likely is it that it could be converted to .rpm?
I have some basic experience building RPMs and would be up for helping with
this task.
Mike Hall
10 years, 11 months
Fwd: [ANN] Apache Tomcat 6.0.37 released
by Mihamina Rakotomandimby
Well,
Here comes a security release.
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: [ANN] Apache Tomcat 6.0.37 released
Date: Mon, 06 May 2013 12:56:17 +0200
From: jean-frederic clere <jfclere(a)gmail.com>
Reply-To: Tomcat Users List <users(a)tomcat.apache.org>
To: Tomcat Developers List <dev(a)tomcat.apache.org>, Tomcat Users List
<users(a)tomcat.apache.org>
The Apache Tomcat team announces the immediate availability of Apache
Tomcat 6.0.37 stable.
Apache Tomcat 6.0.37 is primarily a security and bug fix release. All
users of older versions of the Tomcat 6.0 family should upgrade to 6.0.37.
Note that is version has 4 zip binaries: a generic one and three
bundled with Tomcat native binaries for different CPU architectures.
Apache Tomcat 6.0 includes new features over Apache Tomcat 5.5,
including support for the new Servlet 2.5 and JSP 2.1 specifications, a
refactored clustering implementation, advanced IO features, and
improvements in memory usage.
Please refer to the change log for the list of changes:
http://tomcat.apache.org/tomcat-6.0-doc/changelog.html
Downloads:
http://tomcat.apache.org/download-60.cgi
Migration guide from Apache Tomcat 5.5.x:
http://tomcat.apache.org/migration.html
Thank you,
-- The Apache Tomcat Team
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe(a)tomcat.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-help(a)tomcat.apache.org
--
RMA.
10 years, 11 months
Convert 64bit DEB to RPM - dependency errors
by Michael Hall
I am attempting to repackage a DEB version of the Lightworks video editor
as an RPM for Fedora 18 (x86_64).
I have unpacked the DEB file and copied the contents of data.tar.gz (/usr
and subdirectories) to my BUILDROOT directory.
Then I created a spec file which basically just specifies package info and
the %files section.
The RPM builds OK but does not install due to dependency errors.
The dependencies are all actually in the RPM itself, as the Lightworks DEB
package includes its own versions of needed libraries in
/usr/lib/lightworks.
Obviously, the RPM doesn't know about this.
Apparently Debian doesn't use the /usr/lib64 location for 64 bit libraries.
The problem may have something to do with this, or ldconfig or similar.
Adding /sbin/ldconfig to a %post section has made no difference.
Putting the libraries in either /usr/lib or /usr/lib64 in the RPM also
hasn't fixed the issue
Any suggestions on how I can resolve this?
10 years, 11 months
Re: [Fedora-packaging] Package rename breakage - wat do?
by Stephen Gallagher
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
I accidentally replied only to the node mailing list, but this is my
interpretation of the situation:
On 05/02/2013 07:41 AM, Stephen Gallagher wrote:
> On 05/02/2013 06:55 AM, Tom Hughes wrote:
>> On 02/05/13 08:38, T.C. Hollingsworth wrote:
>
>>> So, should we: 1. provide a compatibility symlink so older
>>> versions of nodejs-request aren't broken at all
>>>
>>> 2. add Conflicts to nodejs-cookie-jar specifiying the older
>>> versions of nodejs-request that it will break
>>>
>>> 3. do nothing; if you install only part of a single bodhi
>>> update and it breaks you get to keep both pieces
>
>
> FYI, this is not technically permissible. The packaging guidelines
> require clean upgrade paths. If you need to install multiple pieces
> of a Bodhi update for things to work, they need to be arranged
> with Requires/Obsoletes/Conflicts appropriately so that they are
> pulled in automatically. Anything else is a bug in the packaging.
>
>> Another option is to say that a rename of a node module is not
>> what the rename guidelines call a "compatible enough replacement"
>> which would mean the new package would not provide the old name,
>> but would still obsolete it.
>
>
> That's not necessarily true. If it's a one-to-one replacement
> (except for the name), then I'd suggest that option 1 is the best
> plan for the short term, but that we should open Bugzilla tickets
> against all known packages depending on the old name to update in
> their next releases.
>
> If just adding a symlink to make it a full replacement is enough to
> do the job, that's definitely the least impact. No need to force
> an update until the other package is ready for it.
>
>
>> Any packages that depended on the old name would then need to be
>> rebuilt to depend on the new name and yum would not allow one to
>> be updated without the other.
>
>> Tom
>
>
> _______________________________________________ nodejs mailing
> list nodejs(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
> https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/nodejs
>
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.13 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/
iEYEARECAAYFAlGCXdUACgkQeiVVYja6o6N3owCgiAMU6mbFAi7n7gcU1aqgorkX
XA8AnRg1pDPe/VB+KKxochRMjAD6rZ6R
=F3h3
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
10 years, 12 months
Auto-Provides and glibc
by David Michael
Hi,
Quick question: I've been cleaning up some local packages of mine,
including a glibc, and noticed it's automatically adding Provides for
all of the iconv modules %{libdir}/gconv/*.so. I thought I'd filter
out these files as per the guidelines[1], but apparently the system
glibc also provides them. No packages seem to require any of them[2].
Was this an oversight, or is there a reason to keep advertising these
~250 modules through RPM Provides?
Thanks.
David
[1] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:AutoProvidesAndRequiresFiltering
[2] repoquery --whatrequires --alldeps `rpm -q --provides glibc | sed
-n /^ANSI/,/^VISC/p`
10 years, 12 months
rpm pre/post script order
by Farkas Levente
hi,
after we carefully examine this wiki:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:ScriptletSnippets?rd=Packaging/S...
still don't understand how rpm works (or the wiki is wrong).
suppose we've got a package pkg with this in the spec:
%pre
. /usr/share/pkg/foo
pkg_pre
%post
. /usr/share/pkg/foo
pkg_post
where pkg_pre and pkg_post are shell functions in the /usr/share/pkg/foo
shell script file. pkg-1.0 has this function:
pkg_pre { echo "pre-1.0"; }
pkg_post { echo "post-1.0"; }
while pkg-2.0:
pkg_pre { echo "pre-2.0"; }
pkg_post { echo "post-2.0"; }
questions 1:
if i install pkg-1.0 will it echo pre-1.0? if yes how can it be possible
since the file /usr/share/pkg/foo only installed in step 3 which is
after step 2 (%pre of new package)?
questions 2:
when i upgrade from 1.0 to 2.0 according to the above wiki step 2. it
should have to echo pre-2.0 or pre-1.0? since the already installed
/usr/share/pkg/foo is 1.0? but (after we test it) we got pre-2.0. why?
so what is the truth here and how can i run any kind of script or file
installed by 1.0 during the update process to 2.0? the only way seems to
%pre of the new package since step 3 install the new file (ie. overwrite
all old file), so all rpm scripts of the old packages runs after the new
files have been already installed.
thanks.
--
Levente "Si vis pacem para bellum!"
10 years, 12 months
Package rename breakage - wat do?
by T.C. Hollingsworth
Someone recently experienced a little breakage related to a package
rename, and I'm not sure about the best strategy to resolve it.
Upstream finally got around to unbundling a cookie handling library
from two unrelated npm packages (tobi and request). We had previously
split it off in Fedora before, but needed to rename the package and
move it into its final home, so the directory under
/usr/lib/node_modules changed. While I shipped an updated
nodejs-request along with the new nodejs-cookie-jar package in the
same Bodhi update, it's possible to update to nodejs-cookie-jar (which
Obsolotes/Provides the old unbundled package) without updating
nodejs-request. This will of course will break request since it looks
for it under the old, temporary name.
So, should we:
1. provide a compatibility symlink so older versions of
nodejs-request aren't broken at all
2. add Conflicts to nodejs-cookie-jar specifiying the older versions
of nodejs-request that it will break
3. do nothing; if you install only part of a single bodhi update and
it breaks you get to keep both pieces
Both 1 or 2 are ugly in their own way, and 3 might be technically
correct but doesn't seem very nice, so I'm not sure how to proceed.
Thanks in advance for suggestions!
-T.C.
10 years, 12 months
using the tilde in tarball versions
by Daniel Pocock
Hi,
I've had a look at
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=734802
and I understand that tildes are supported by new versions of RPM, but
not by Fedora infrastructure
I'm currently trying to prepare an upstream project to build tarballs
and I would like to use tildes in the version number of the test
tarballs and distribute them through the upstream web site. They won't
be uploaded to Fedora until a real release (without any tilde) is
tagged. Users will manually rpmbuild packages from the tarballs.
Is it considered OK to use the tilde in this manner? I presume that if
a user downloads such a tarball to an older system, they will have
issues with it but anybody using F18+ will be OK?
Regards,
Daniel
10 years, 12 months
Summary/Minutes from today's FPC Meeting (2013-05-01 16:00 - 17:00 UTC)
by James Antill
=============================================
#fedora-meeting-1: Fedora Packaging Committee
=============================================
Meeting started by spot at 16:02:50 UTC. The full logs are available at
http://meetbot.fedoraproject.org/fedora-meeting-1/2013-05-01/fpc.2013-05-...
.
Meeting summary
---------------
* Roll Call (spot, 16:04:30)
* Schedule (spot, 16:06:28)
* Revision to Haskell Guidelines -
https://fedorahosted.org/fpc/ticket/194 (spot, 16:08:27)
* LINK: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/Haskell has
been reworked to drop the "section spanning" macros (spot,
16:08:51)
* ACTION: Haskell Draft (with templates merged into guidelines)
approved (+1:6, 0:0, -1:0) (spot, 16:13:57)
* soft-static uid/gid for sgeadmin -
https://fedorahosted.org/fpc/ticket/274 (spot, 16:16:14)
* ACTION: Soft-static UID/GID request was not approved (+1:4, 0:1,
-1:4) (spot, 16:32:43)
* Bundling libxdiff in libgit2 (and git) -
https://fedorahosted.org/fpc/ticket/276 (spot, 16:44:36)
* Next week meeting time (spot, 16:52:11)
* ACTION: Meeting Time moved to Thursday at 1600 UTC (spot, 16:57:31)
Meeting ended at 16:59:12 UTC.
Action Items
------------
* Haskell Draft (with templates merged into guidelines) approved (+1:6,
0:0, -1:0)
* Soft-static UID/GID request was not approved (+1:4, 0:1, -1:4)
* Meeting Time moved to Thursday at 1600 UTC
Action Items, by person
-----------------------
* **UNASSIGNED**
* Haskell Draft (with templates merged into guidelines) approved
(+1:6, 0:0, -1:0)
* Soft-static UID/GID request was not approved (+1:4, 0:1, -1:4)
* Meeting Time moved to Thursday at 1600 UTC
People Present (lines said)
---------------------------
* spot (62)
* tibbs (33)
* limburgher (24)
* geppetto (22)
* abadger1999 (21)
* Rathann (17)
* SmootherFrOgZ (10)
* racor (6)
* rdieter (4)
* zodbot (3)
Generated by `MeetBot`_ 0.1.4
.. _`MeetBot`: http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot
10 years, 12 months