I've been WAY out of the loop on Fedora here recently. What's up with the Fusion Repo gpg key I had to import this morning? Based on the '(non-free)' in the description, I'm going to assume this will be a repo for non-GPL (or incompatible to the GPL) licensed software?
On Thu, 2008-11-06 at 09:06 -0500, Mark Haney wrote:
I've been WAY out of the loop on Fedora here recently. What's up with the Fusion Repo gpg key I had to import this morning? Based on the '(non-free)' in the description, I'm going to assume this will be a repo for non-GPL (or incompatible to the GPL) licensed software?
In short: Livna, FreshRPMs, and Dribble started their RPMFusion cut-over. The rest of your assumptions are essentially correct.
Cheers,
Chris
-- ================================== By all means marry; If you get a good wife, you'll be happy. If you get a bad one, you'll become a philosopher.
--Socrates
On Thu, 2008-11-06 at 07:16 -0700, Christopher A. Williams wrote:
On Thu, 2008-11-06 at 09:06 -0500, Mark Haney wrote:
I've been WAY out of the loop on Fedora here recently. What's up with the Fusion Repo gpg key I had to import this morning? Based on the '(non-free)' in the description, I'm going to assume this will be a repo for non-GPL (or incompatible to the GPL) licensed software?
In short: Livna, FreshRPMs, and Dribble started their RPMFusion cut-over. The rest of your assumptions are essentially correct.
Except that they won't support "DMCA-infringing" software, e.g. libdvdcss, which Livna for example currently does. i.e. don't delete your Livna repo.
poc
Patrick O'Callaghan wrote:
On Thu, 2008-11-06 at 07:16 -0700, Christopher A. Williams wrote:
On Thu, 2008-11-06 at 09:06 -0500, Mark Haney wrote:
I've been WAY out of the loop on Fedora here recently. What's up with the Fusion Repo gpg key I had to import this morning? Based on the '(non-free)' in the description, I'm going to assume this will be a repo for non-GPL (or incompatible to the GPL) licensed software?
In short: Livna, FreshRPMs, and Dribble started their RPMFusion cut-over. The rest of your assumptions are essentially correct.
Except that they won't support "DMCA-infringing" software, e.g. libdvdcss, which Livna for example currently does. i.e. don't delete your Livna repo.
poc
Ah. Okay, that is all I needed, I appreciate the clarification.
On Thu, 2008-11-06 at 10:04 -0500, Mark Haney wrote:
Patrick O'Callaghan wrote:
On Thu, 2008-11-06 at 07:16 -0700, Christopher A. Williams wrote:
On Thu, 2008-11-06 at 09:06 -0500, Mark Haney wrote:
I've been WAY out of the loop on Fedora here recently. What's up with the Fusion Repo gpg key I had to import this morning? Based on the '(non-free)' in the description, I'm going to assume this will be a repo for non-GPL (or incompatible to the GPL) licensed software?
In short: Livna, FreshRPMs, and Dribble started their RPMFusion cut-over. The rest of your assumptions are essentially correct.
Except that they won't support "DMCA-infringing" software, e.g. libdvdcss, which Livna for example currently does. i.e. don't delete your Livna repo.
poc
Ah. Okay, that is all I needed, I appreciate the clarification.
--
Ok, I am confused and just may be a bit slow.
I am running Fedora 9 with Gnome. There is a graphical front end for adding/removing software and another for updates.
I reviewed these and did not see any indication that the fusion repositories were added.
Is there something I am missing? Should I be doing something to add fusion?
In following the various threads, I was under the impression that Fedora was setting this up to be seamless that the only concerned seemed to be with the keys.
Thanks in advance for the clarification.
Frustra laborant quotquot se calculationibus fatigant pro inventione quadraturae circuli
Mark Haney Sr. Systems Administrator ERC Broadband (828) 350-2415
Call (866) ERC-7110 for after hours support
Jeff Maxwell wrote:
On Thu, 2008-11-06 at 10:04 -0500, Mark Haney wrote:
Patrick O'Callaghan wrote:
On Thu, 2008-11-06 at 07:16 -0700, Christopher A. Williams wrote:
On Thu, 2008-11-06 at 09:06 -0500, Mark Haney wrote:
I've been WAY out of the loop on Fedora here recently. What's up with the Fusion Repo gpg key I had to import this morning? Based on the '(non-free)' in the description, I'm going to assume this will be a repo for non-GPL (or incompatible to the GPL) licensed software?
In short: Livna, FreshRPMs, and Dribble started their RPMFusion cut-over. The rest of your assumptions are essentially correct.
Except that they won't support "DMCA-infringing" software, e.g. libdvdcss, which Livna for example currently does. i.e. don't delete your Livna repo.
poc
Ah. Okay, that is all I needed, I appreciate the clarification.
--
Ok, I am confused and just may be a bit slow.
I am running Fedora 9 with Gnome. There is a graphical front end for adding/removing software and another for updates.
I reviewed these and did not see any indication that the fusion repositories were added.
Is there something I am missing? Should I be doing something to add fusion?
I didn't do anything to add the repo to mine. But then, I only ever do updates from the command line.
Em Qui 06 Nov 2008, Jeff Maxwell escreveu:
On Thu, 2008-11-06 at 10:04 -0500, Mark Haney wrote:
Patrick O'Callaghan wrote:
On Thu, 2008-11-06 at 07:16 -0700, Christopher A. Williams wrote:
On Thu, 2008-11-06 at 09:06 -0500, Mark Haney wrote:
I've been WAY out of the loop on Fedora here recently. What's up with the Fusion Repo gpg key I had to import this morning? Based on the '(non-free)' in the description, I'm going to assume this will be a repo for non-GPL (or incompatible to the GPL) licensed software?
In short: Livna, FreshRPMs, and Dribble started their RPMFusion cut-over. The rest of your assumptions are essentially correct.
Except that they won't support "DMCA-infringing" software, e.g. libdvdcss, which Livna for example currently does. i.e. don't delete your Livna repo.
poc
Ah. Okay, that is all I needed, I appreciate the clarification.
--
Ok, I am confused and just may be a bit slow.
I am running Fedora 9 with Gnome. There is a graphical front end for adding/removing software and another for updates.
I reviewed these and did not see any indication that the fusion repositories were added.
Is there something I am missing? Should I be doing something to add fusion?
In following the various threads, I was under the impression that Fedora was setting this up to be seamless that the only concerned seemed to be with the keys.
Thanks in advance for the clarification.
The Fusion repo was automatically installed only for those who had Livna configured. Did you? If not, you can get Livna configuration RPM here: http://rpm.livna.org/rlowiki/
[]'s Marcelo
On Thu, 2008-11-06 at 12:37 -0300, Marcelo Magno T. Sales wrote:
Em Qui 06 Nov 2008, Jeff Maxwell escreveu:
On Thu, 2008-11-06 at 10:04 -0500, Mark Haney wrote:
Patrick O'Callaghan wrote:
On Thu, 2008-11-06 at 07:16 -0700, Christopher A. Williams wrote:
On Thu, 2008-11-06 at 09:06 -0500, Mark Haney wrote:
I've been WAY out of the loop on Fedora here recently. What's up with the Fusion Repo gpg key I had to import this morning? Based on the '(non-free)' in the description, I'm going to assume this will be a repo for non-GPL (or incompatible to the GPL) licensed software?
In short: Livna, FreshRPMs, and Dribble started their RPMFusion cut-over. The rest of your assumptions are essentially correct.
Except that they won't support "DMCA-infringing" software, e.g. libdvdcss, which Livna for example currently does. i.e. don't delete your Livna repo.
poc
Ah. Okay, that is all I needed, I appreciate the clarification.
--
Ok, I am confused and just may be a bit slow.
I am running Fedora 9 with Gnome. There is a graphical front end for adding/removing software and another for updates.
I reviewed these and did not see any indication that the fusion repositories were added.
Is there something I am missing? Should I be doing something to add fusion?
In following the various threads, I was under the impression that Fedora was setting this up to be seamless that the only concerned seemed to be with the keys.
Thanks in advance for the clarification.
The Fusion repo was automatically installed only for those who had Livna configured. Did you? If not, you can get Livna configuration RPM here: http://rpm.livna.org/rlowiki/
Never mind. Once I finally took the time to read through the threads more thoroughly and checked the web sites out, the upgrade to fusion was intuitive.
Thanks.
[]'s Marcelo
I got confused by the first round of updates, with audacious non-free plugins (e.g. MP3) being updated with audacious plugins freeworld. A non-free thing got replaced with a free thing?
On Fri, 2008-11-07 at 03:27 +1030, Tim wrote:
I got confused by the first round of updates, with audacious non-free plugins (e.g. MP3) being updated with audacious plugins freeworld. A non-free thing got replaced with a free thing?
There are two repos, free and non-free. Make sure they are both enabled.
poc
On Thu, 06 Nov 2008 12:44:08 -0430 "Patrick O'Callaghan" pocallaghan@gmail.com wrote:
There are two repos, free and non-free.
I actually took a look in the rawhide non-free repo by going directly to the baseurl in a web browser, and as near as I can tell, there are not any rpms in the nonfree repo at this time.
On Thu, 6 Nov 2008 12:24:05 -0500 Tom Horsley tom.horsley@att.net wrote:
I actually took a look in the rawhide non-free repo by going directly to the baseurl in a web browser, and as near as I can tell, there are not any rpms in the nonfree repo at this time.
Or maybe I just can't figure out where to look - I couldn't find anything in the free version either :-).
On Thu, 2008-11-06 at 12:24 -0500, Tom Horsley wrote:
On Thu, 06 Nov 2008 12:44:08 -0430 "Patrick O'Callaghan" pocallaghan@gmail.com wrote:
There are two repos, free and non-free.
I actually took a look in the rawhide non-free repo by going directly to the baseurl in a web browser, and as near as I can tell, there are not any rpms in the nonfree repo at this time.
Could be, but note that the rawhide repo is not the same as the standard repo.
poc
Tim wrote:
I got confused by the first round of updates, with audacious non-free plugins (e.g. MP3) being updated with audacious plugins freeworld. A non-free thing got replaced with a free thing?
The content doesn't change. Just a rename. The previous name was confusing since the plugins are not actually non-free. The software in the free repository is all free and open source software with potential patent or other legal encumbrances.
Rahul
On Thu, 2008-11-06 at 13:55 -0430, Patrick O'Callaghan wrote:
On Thu, 2008-11-06 at 12:24 -0500, Tom Horsley wrote:
On Thu, 06 Nov 2008 12:44:08 -0430 "Patrick O'Callaghan" pocallaghan@gmail.com wrote:
There are two repos, free and non-free.
I actually took a look in the rawhide non-free repo by going directly to the baseurl in a web browser, and as near as I can tell, there are not any rpms in the nonfree repo at this time.
Could be, but note that the rawhide repo is not the same as the standard repo.
poc
I believe most things live in the updates repos ie rpmfusion-free-updates.repo shows baseurl=http://download1.rpmfusion.org/free/fedora/updates/$releasever/$basearch/ which has lots of goodies!
John
On Thu, 2008-11-06 at 10:18 -0500, Jeff Maxwell wrote:
Ok, I am confused and just may be a bit slow.
I am running Fedora 9 with Gnome. There is a graphical front end for adding/removing software and another for updates.
I reviewed these and did not see any indication that the fusion repositories were added.
Is there something I am missing? Should I be doing something to add fusion?
In following the various threads, I was under the impression that Fedora was setting this up to be seamless that the only concerned seemed to be with the keys.
Thanks in advance for the clarification.
Installing Free and Non-Free Repositories
If you want to enable access via yum to the free repository, just type the following command:
rpm -ivh http://download1.rpmfusion.org/free/fedora/rpmfusion-free-release-stable.noa...
If you want to enable access to the nonfree repository too, you also need to type this command:
rpm -ivh http://download1.rpmfusion.org/free/fedora/rpmfusion-nonfree-release-stable.... ===================================================================== Today is a good day for information-gathering. Read someone else's mail file. ======================================================================= Aaron Konstam telephone: (210) 656-0355 e-mail: akonstam@sbcglobal.net
On Thu, 2008-11-06 at 12:44 -0430, Patrick O'Callaghan wrote:
There are two repos, free and non-free. Make sure they are both enabled.
They were. I checked that at the time. Rahul's answer sort of makes sense, but I'm quite surprised that there was a "free" WMA plug-in.
Tim wrote:
On Thu, 2008-11-06 at 12:44 -0430, Patrick O'Callaghan wrote:
There are two repos, free and non-free. Make sure they are both enabled.
They were. I checked that at the time. Rahul's answer sort of makes sense, but I'm quite surprised that there was a "free" WMA plug-in.
Why? ffmpeg supports pretty much everything, these days.
Rahul
Tim:
I'm quite surprised that there was a "free" WMA plug-in.
Rahul Sundaram:
Why? ffmpeg supports pretty much everything, these days.
I was surprised that there was any sort of legal free codec for a Microsoft Windows Media Audio format. I'd expect it to be encumbered up to the hilt.
-------- Original Message -------- Subject: Re: RPM Fusion repo? From: Tim ignored_mailbox@yahoo.com.au To: Community assistance, encouragement, and advice for using Fedora. fedora-list@redhat.com Date: 11/07/2008 12:05 AM
Tim:
I'm quite surprised that there was a "free" WMA plug-in.
Rahul Sundaram:
Why? ffmpeg supports pretty much everything, these days.
I was surprised that there was any sort of legal free codec for a Microsoft Windows Media Audio format. I'd expect it to be encumbered up to the hilt.
Do not be mistaken. WMA is patented, proprietary, and closed-source. FFMPEG is not legal in the USA. Ideally you should convert any WMA over to at least MP3 and at best OGG Vorbis or FLAC.
There's nothing stopping you from using ffmpeg though. I'm just mentioning the facts.
Tim wrote:
Tim:
I'm quite surprised that there was a "free" WMA plug-in.
Rahul Sundaram:
Why? ffmpeg supports pretty much everything, these days.
I was surprised that there was any sort of legal free codec for a Microsoft Windows Media Audio format. I'd expect it to be encumbered up to the hilt.
ffmpeg is a complete from scratch implementation licensed under GPL and hence doesn't have copyright issues. It may have patent issues but software patents are not valid in many places yet. So rpmfusion can hold these packages in places where patents are not valid but not Fedora itself.
Rahul
Tim wrote:
Tim:
I'm quite surprised that there was a "free" WMA plug-in.
Rahul Sundaram:
Why? ffmpeg supports pretty much everything, these days.
I was surprised that there was any sort of legal free codec for a Microsoft Windows Media Audio format. I'd expect it to be encumbered up to the hilt.
ffmpeg is a complete from scratch implementation licensed under GPL and hence doesn't have copyright issues. It may have patent issues but software patents are not valid in many places yet. So rpmfusion can hold these packages in places where patents are not valid but not Fedora itself.
Rahul
On Fri, 2008-11-07 at 10:09 -0600, Michael Cronenworth wrote:
Do not be mistaken. WMA is patented, proprietary, and closed-source. FFMPEG is not legal in the USA.
That's what I thought, and was surprised to find a supposedly "free" codec for it.
Ideally you should convert any WMA over to at least MP3 and at best OGG Vorbis or FLAC.
Ideally I wouldn't touch WMA with a ten foot bargepole. But, occasionally, I want to listen to something off a website. I do use ogg vorbis for my own encoding. And I've never found MP3s to encode well, on any system, I can always hear nasty sound effects, even at very high bit rates.
On Sat November 8 2008 3:26:31 am Tim wrote:
On Fri, 2008-11-07 at 10:09 -0600, Michael Cronenworth wrote:
Do not be mistaken. WMA is patented, proprietary, and closed-source. FFMPEG is not legal in the USA.
That's what I thought, and was surprised to find a supposedly "free" codec for it.
So far as I know, FFMPEG's legality has not been adjudicated in the U.S. If M. Cronenworth knows different, I'd appreciate a link.
Far as I know, and this is not rigorously researched, there is more than one project attempting to develop non-Microsoft codecs that can read Windows Media files - it's not much different than Microsoft developing Word filters to read WordPerfect documents, is it?
Software patents are increasingly being challenged in the U.S., and hopefully, the whole concept will be eventually dumped. But again, I have heard of no legal challenge to FFMPEG...