[suggest] Update of libtheora, libvorbis, x264 and dependent products

[Grant Street]

Hello

I know this may be nontrivial but I'm happy to help.

I'm in the process of creating a custom ffmpeg based on 0.6.1 but there
are a few dependancies that have to be updated.

The three main ones I've found so far are
libvorbis ( I was able to get a newer version from atrpms)
libtheora ( I was able to get a newer version from atrpms)
x264 ( the sticky one)

x264 has a library libx264.so.68 that is required by mplayer,
libquicktime, vlc and of course ffmpeg.

I can't compile ffmpeg 0.6.1 because the header file in
/usr/include/x264.h is not compatible. I can't install a newly created
x264-devel rpm because it requires a new x264 which can't be updated
because the libx264.so.68 is required ....

So before I go through uninstalling vlc,mplayer, libquicktime, ffmpeg
and recompiling them all, I was wondering if I could help you guys, talk
about caveats or should I go it alone.

Thanks

Grant

[Dag Wieers]

Post by Grant Street
I know this may be nontrivial but I'm happy to help.
I'm in the process of creating a custom ffmpeg based on 0.6.1 but there are a
few dependancies that have to be updated.
The three main ones I've found so far are
libvorbis ( I was able to get a newer version from atrpms)
libtheora ( I was able to get a newer version from atrpms)
x264 ( the sticky one)
x264 has a library libx264.so.68 that is required by mplayer, libquicktime,
vlc and of course ffmpeg.
I can't compile ffmpeg 0.6.1 because the header file in /usr/include/x264.h
is not compatible. I can't install a newly created x264-devel rpm because it
requires a new x264 which can't be updated because the libx264.so.68 is
required ....
So before I go through uninstalling vlc,mplayer, libquicktime, ffmpeg and
recompiling them all, I was wondering if I could help you guys, talk about
caveats or should I go it alone.

I am planning to do the same, in fact I have been delaying this for RHEL6
as it impacts RHEL5 and RHEL4 too.

In the past the hard problem was to find a combination of libraries that
works for everything (and hopefully also builds for older distributions).
It feels like throwing stuff in your christmas tree, shaking it and
collecting what fell off, and repeat a few times.

Unfortunately the whole process could take hours and it would have been
much easier if eg. we had compatibility libraries for some of the pieces.

PS I still regret that Fedora never made a good standard for library
packages like PLD and Mandrake had. Using the soname and packaging
libraries _always_ separate to other things.

[Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski]

[...]

Post by Dag Wieers

Post by Grant Street
So before I go through uninstalling vlc,mplayer, libquicktime, ffmpeg and
recompiling them all, I was wondering if I could help you guys, talk about
caveats or should I go it alone.

I am planning to do the same, in fact I have been delaying this for RHEL6
as it impacts RHEL5 and RHEL4 too.

FWIW, I'm planning to do an update in RPMFusion before Christmas, so feel
free to use my work if you don't do it earlier.

[...]

Post by Dag Wieers
PS I still regret that Fedora never made a good standard for library
packages like PLD and Mandrake had. Using the soname and packaging
libraries _always_ separate to other things.

You can always submit an update to the packaging guidelines. I'll put it on
my TODO list. If you have any specific suggestions, I'm all ears.

Regards,
Dominik

[Grant Street]

Post by Dag Wieers

Post by Grant Street
I'm in the process of creating a custom ffmpeg based on 0.6.1 but there are a
few dependancies that have to be updated.

....

Post by Dag Wieers

Post by Grant Street
So before I go through uninstalling vlc,mplayer, libquicktime, ffmpeg and
recompiling them all, I was wondering if I could help you guys, talk about
caveats or should I go it alone.

I am planning to do the same, in fact I have been delaying this for RHEL6
as it impacts RHEL5 and RHEL4 too.

Do you need some help? do you want me to get started and submit spec
files? Have you done much already?

Grant

[Grant Street]

Hi I saw that ffmpeg 0.6.1 is now in rpmforge ... thank you.

I am tring to install the ffmpeg source rpm but it is giving me an error

...
########################################### [100%]
error: unpacking of archive failed on file
/usr/src/redhat/SOURCES/ffmpeg-0.6.1.tar.bz2;4cfd8243: cpio: MD5 sum
mismatch

the srpm has the following md5sum
# md5sum ffmpeg-0.6.1-1.rf.src.rpm
0e45a3b61666b0b8242a18c577cae925 ffmpeg-0.6.1-1.rf.src.rpm

I have checkd diskspace, different mirrors etc

Are you able to double check the file?

Grant

Post by Grant Street

Post by Dag Wieers

Post by Grant Street
I'm in the process of creating a custom ffmpeg based on 0.6.1 but there are a
few dependancies that have to be updated.

....

Post by Dag Wieers

Post by Grant Street
So before I go through uninstalling vlc,mplayer, libquicktime, ffmpeg and
recompiling them all, I was wondering if I could help you guys, talk about
caveats or should I go it alone.

I am planning to do the same, in fact I have been delaying this for RHEL6
as it impacts RHEL5 and RHEL4 too.

Do you need some help? do you want me to get started and submit spec
files? Have you done much already?
Grant

[Dag Wieers]

Post by Grant Street
Hi I saw that ffmpeg 0.6.1 is now in rpmforge ... thank you.
I am tring to install the ffmpeg source rpm but it is giving me an error
...
########################################### [100%]
error: unpacking of archive failed on file
/usr/src/redhat/SOURCES/ffmpeg-0.6.1.tar.bz2;4cfd8243: cpio: MD5 sum mismatch
the srpm has the following md5sum
# md5sum ffmpeg-0.6.1-1.rf.src.rpm
0e45a3b61666b0b8242a18c577cae925 ffmpeg-0.6.1-1.rf.src.rpm
I have checkd diskspace, different mirrors etc
Are you able to double check the file?

The file is made on SRPM. You may have to use --nomd5 or --nofiledigest to
be able to use it. Blame the RPM developers for this :)

[Yury V. Zaytsev]

Post by Dag Wieers
The file is made on SRPM. You may have to use --nomd5 or --nofiledigest to
be able to use it. Blame the RPM developers for this :)

Made on RHEL6 you meant to say. RPM devs are not two blame, support for
SHA1 hashes and xz has been introduced long time ago and is also
something that many have been looking for, considering how md5 is
becoming increasingly less secure.

If you want to use these RPMs on RHEL5-, either don't check the hashes,
OR download and install new rpm binaries from Fedora infrastructure
project, since they still support RHEL5-based builders.

[Dag Wieers]

Post by Yury V. Zaytsev

Post by Dag Wieers
The file is made on SRPM. You may have to use --nomd5 or --nofiledigest to
be able to use it. Blame the RPM developers for this :)

Made on RHEL6 you meant to say. RPM devs are not two blame, support for
SHA1 hashes and xz has been introduced long time ago and is also
something that many have been looking for, considering how md5 is
becoming increasingly less secure.

Right, but it would be so much better if older RPM binaries would know
that these RPM packages are newer and incompatible. Or, that the older RPM
binaries were patched to support them, or provide a better error message.

I got about 20 messages about this. People are wasting time because of
improper messages that indicate some failure with the package, the files
or their system.

[Yury V. Zaytsev]

Post by Dag Wieers
Right, but it would be so much better if older RPM binaries would know
that these RPM packages are newer and incompatible. Or, that the older RPM
binaries were patched to support them, or provide a better error message.

I totally agree with you, but your message is clearly directed to the
wrong person, because I am not an RPM developer and didn't participate
in taking any of the decisions concerning this move at any level.

Post by Dag Wieers
I got about 20 messages about this. People are wasting time because of
improper messages that indicate some failure with the package, the files
or their system.

Luckily (or unluckily) for me, I faced this problem about a year ago,
when my RHEL5 mock builder started getting failures building FC
packages. I tracked it back to the SHA1 hashes and solved the problem by
asking on #fedora for the infrastructure RPMs that they use on their
RHEL5 builders.

Few months later I had to go through it again, because they switched
over to the new xz compression algorithm in the same fashion and with
the same consequences.

I think the right question to ask now that it's done in one way or
another would be if they are still going to maintain RPM backports for
RHEL5 builders now that RHEL6 is released. What I am afraid of is that
they gonna ditch them as soon as they switch to RHEL6.

[Yury V. Zaytsev]

Post by Dag Wieers
Right, but it would be so much better if older RPM binaries would know
that these RPM packages are newer and incompatible. Or, that the older RPM
binaries were patched to support them, or provide a better error message.

I totally agree with you, but your message is clearly directed to the
wrong person, because I am not an RPM developer and didn't participate
in taking any of the decisions concerning this move at any level.

Post by Dag Wieers
I got about 20 messages about this. People are wasting time because of
improper messages that indicate some failure with the package, the files
or their system.

Luckily (or unluckily) for me, I faced this problem about a year ago,
when my RHEL5 mock builder started getting failures building FC
packages. I tracked it back to the SHA1 hashes and solved the problem by
asking on #fedora for the infrastructure RPMs that they use on their
RHEL5 builders.

Few months later I had to go through it again, because they switched
over to the new xz compression algorithm in the same fashion and with
the same consequences.

I think the right question to ask now that it's done in one way or
another would be if they are still going to maintain RPM backports for
RHEL5 builders now that RHEL6 is released. What I am afraid of is that
they gonna ditch them as soon as they switch to RHEL6.

[Yury V. Zaytsev]

Post by Dag Wieers
Right, but it would be so much better if older RPM binaries would know
that these RPM packages are newer and incompatible. Or, that the older RPM
binaries were patched to support them, or provide a better error message.

I totally agree with you, but your message is clearly directed to the
wrong person, because I am not an RPM developer and didn't participate
in taking any of the decisions concerning this move at any level.

Post by Dag Wieers
I got about 20 messages about this. People are wasting time because of
improper messages that indicate some failure with the package, the files
or their system.

Luckily (or unluckily) for me, I faced this problem about a year ago,
when my RHEL5 mock builder started getting failures building FC
packages. I tracked it back to the SHA1 hashes and solved the problem by
asking on #fedora for the infrastructure RPMs that they use on their
RHEL5 builders.

Few months later I had to go through it again, because they switched
over to the new xz compression algorithm in the same fashion and with
the same consequences.

I think the right question to ask now that it's done in one way or
another would be if they are still going to maintain RPM backports for
RHEL5 builders now that RHEL6 is released. What I am afraid of is that
they gonna ditch them as soon as they switch to RHEL6.

[Yury V. Zaytsev]

Post by Dag Wieers
Right, but it would be so much better if older RPM binaries would know
that these RPM packages are newer and incompatible. Or, that the older RPM
binaries were patched to support them, or provide a better error message.

I totally agree with you, but your message is clearly directed to the
wrong person, because I am not an RPM developer and didn't participate
in taking any of the decisions concerning this move at any level.

Post by Dag Wieers
I got about 20 messages about this. People are wasting time because of
improper messages that indicate some failure with the package, the files
or their system.

Luckily (or unluckily) for me, I faced this problem about a year ago,
when my RHEL5 mock builder started getting failures building FC
packages. I tracked it back to the SHA1 hashes and solved the problem by
asking on #fedora for the infrastructure RPMs that they use on their
RHEL5 builders.

Few months later I had to go through it again, because they switched
over to the new xz compression algorithm in the same fashion and with
the same consequences.

I think the right question to ask now that it's done in one way or
another would be if they are still going to maintain RPM backports for
RHEL5 builders now that RHEL6 is released. What I am afraid of is that
they gonna ditch them as soon as they switch to RHEL6.

[Yury V. Zaytsev]

Post by Dag Wieers
Right, but it would be so much better if older RPM binaries would know
that these RPM packages are newer and incompatible. Or, that the older RPM
binaries were patched to support them, or provide a better error message.

I totally agree with you, but your message is clearly directed to the
wrong person, because I am not an RPM developer and didn't participate
in taking any of the decisions concerning this move at any level.

Post by Dag Wieers
I got about 20 messages about this. People are wasting time because of
improper messages that indicate some failure with the package, the files
or their system.

Luckily (or unluckily) for me, I faced this problem about a year ago,
when my RHEL5 mock builder started getting failures building FC
packages. I tracked it back to the SHA1 hashes and solved the problem by
asking on #fedora for the infrastructure RPMs that they use on their
RHEL5 builders.

Few months later I had to go through it again, because they switched
over to the new xz compression algorithm in the same fashion and with
the same consequences.

I think the right question to ask now that it's done in one way or
another would be if they are still going to maintain RPM backports for
RHEL5 builders now that RHEL6 is released. What I am afraid of is that
they gonna ditch them as soon as they switch to RHEL6.

[Dag Wieers]

Post by Yury V. Zaytsev

Post by Dag Wieers
The file is made on SRPM. You may have to use --nomd5 or --nofiledigest to
be able to use it. Blame the RPM developers for this :)

Made on RHEL6 you meant to say. RPM devs are not two blame, support for
SHA1 hashes and xz has been introduced long time ago and is also
something that many have been looking for, considering how md5 is
becoming increasingly less secure.

Right, but it would be so much better if older RPM binaries would know
that these RPM packages are newer and incompatible. Or, that the older RPM
binaries were patched to support them, or provide a better error message.

I got about 20 messages about this. People are wasting time because of
improper messages that indicate some failure with the package, the files
or their system.

[Dag Wieers]

Post by Yury V. Zaytsev

Post by Dag Wieers
The file is made on SRPM. You may have to use --nomd5 or --nofiledigest to
be able to use it. Blame the RPM developers for this :)

Made on RHEL6 you meant to say. RPM devs are not two blame, support for
SHA1 hashes and xz has been introduced long time ago and is also
something that many have been looking for, considering how md5 is
becoming increasingly less secure.

Right, but it would be so much better if older RPM binaries would know
that these RPM packages are newer and incompatible. Or, that the older RPM
binaries were patched to support them, or provide a better error message.

I got about 20 messages about this. People are wasting time because of
improper messages that indicate some failure with the package, the files
or their system.

[Dag Wieers]

Post by Yury V. Zaytsev

Post by Dag Wieers
The file is made on SRPM. You may have to use --nomd5 or --nofiledigest to
be able to use it. Blame the RPM developers for this :)

Made on RHEL6 you meant to say. RPM devs are not two blame, support for
SHA1 hashes and xz has been introduced long time ago and is also
something that many have been looking for, considering how md5 is
becoming increasingly less secure.

Right, but it would be so much better if older RPM binaries would know
that these RPM packages are newer and incompatible. Or, that the older RPM
binaries were patched to support them, or provide a better error message.

I got about 20 messages about this. People are wasting time because of
improper messages that indicate some failure with the package, the files
or their system.

[Dag Wieers]

Post by Yury V. Zaytsev

Post by Dag Wieers
The file is made on SRPM. You may have to use --nomd5 or --nofiledigest to
be able to use it. Blame the RPM developers for this :)

Made on RHEL6 you meant to say. RPM devs are not two blame, support for
SHA1 hashes and xz has been introduced long time ago and is also
something that many have been looking for, considering how md5 is
becoming increasingly less secure.

Right, but it would be so much better if older RPM binaries would know
that these RPM packages are newer and incompatible. Or, that the older RPM
binaries were patched to support them, or provide a better error message.

I got about 20 messages about this. People are wasting time because of
improper messages that indicate some failure with the package, the files
or their system.

[Yury V. Zaytsev]

Post by Dag Wieers
The file is made on SRPM. You may have to use --nomd5 or --nofiledigest to
be able to use it. Blame the RPM developers for this :)

Made on RHEL6 you meant to say. RPM devs are not two blame, support for
SHA1 hashes and xz has been introduced long time ago and is also
something that many have been looking for, considering how md5 is
becoming increasingly less secure.

If you want to use these RPMs on RHEL5-, either don't check the hashes,
OR download and install new rpm binaries from Fedora infrastructure
project, since they still support RHEL5-based builders.

[Yury V. Zaytsev]

Post by Dag Wieers
The file is made on SRPM. You may have to use --nomd5 or --nofiledigest to
be able to use it. Blame the RPM developers for this :)

Made on RHEL6 you meant to say. RPM devs are not two blame, support for
SHA1 hashes and xz has been introduced long time ago and is also
something that many have been looking for, considering how md5 is
becoming increasingly less secure.

If you want to use these RPMs on RHEL5-, either don't check the hashes,
OR download and install new rpm binaries from Fedora infrastructure
project, since they still support RHEL5-based builders.

[Yury V. Zaytsev]

Post by Dag Wieers
The file is made on SRPM. You may have to use --nomd5 or --nofiledigest to
be able to use it. Blame the RPM developers for this :)

Made on RHEL6 you meant to say. RPM devs are not two blame, support for
SHA1 hashes and xz has been introduced long time ago and is also
something that many have been looking for, considering how md5 is
becoming increasingly less secure.

If you want to use these RPMs on RHEL5-, either don't check the hashes,
OR download and install new rpm binaries from Fedora infrastructure
project, since they still support RHEL5-based builders.

[Yury V. Zaytsev]

Post by Dag Wieers
The file is made on SRPM. You may have to use --nomd5 or --nofiledigest to
be able to use it. Blame the RPM developers for this :)

Made on RHEL6 you meant to say. RPM devs are not two blame, support for
SHA1 hashes and xz has been introduced long time ago and is also
something that many have been looking for, considering how md5 is
becoming increasingly less secure.

If you want to use these RPMs on RHEL5-, either don't check the hashes,
OR download and install new rpm binaries from Fedora infrastructure
project, since they still support RHEL5-based builders.

[Dag Wieers]

Post by Grant Street
Hi I saw that ffmpeg 0.6.1 is now in rpmforge ... thank you.
I am tring to install the ffmpeg source rpm but it is giving me an error
...
########################################### [100%]
error: unpacking of archive failed on file
/usr/src/redhat/SOURCES/ffmpeg-0.6.1.tar.bz2;4cfd8243: cpio: MD5 sum mismatch
the srpm has the following md5sum
# md5sum ffmpeg-0.6.1-1.rf.src.rpm
0e45a3b61666b0b8242a18c577cae925 ffmpeg-0.6.1-1.rf.src.rpm
I have checkd diskspace, different mirrors etc
Are you able to double check the file?

The file is made on SRPM. You may have to use --nomd5 or --nofiledigest to
be able to use it. Blame the RPM developers for this :)

[Dag Wieers]

Post by Grant Street
Hi I saw that ffmpeg 0.6.1 is now in rpmforge ... thank you.
I am tring to install the ffmpeg source rpm but it is giving me an error
...
########################################### [100%]
error: unpacking of archive failed on file
/usr/src/redhat/SOURCES/ffmpeg-0.6.1.tar.bz2;4cfd8243: cpio: MD5 sum mismatch
the srpm has the following md5sum
# md5sum ffmpeg-0.6.1-1.rf.src.rpm
0e45a3b61666b0b8242a18c577cae925 ffmpeg-0.6.1-1.rf.src.rpm
I have checkd diskspace, different mirrors etc
Are you able to double check the file?

The file is made on SRPM. You may have to use --nomd5 or --nofiledigest to
be able to use it. Blame the RPM developers for this :)

[Dag Wieers]

Post by Grant Street
Hi I saw that ffmpeg 0.6.1 is now in rpmforge ... thank you.
I am tring to install the ffmpeg source rpm but it is giving me an error
...
########################################### [100%]
error: unpacking of archive failed on file
/usr/src/redhat/SOURCES/ffmpeg-0.6.1.tar.bz2;4cfd8243: cpio: MD5 sum mismatch
the srpm has the following md5sum
# md5sum ffmpeg-0.6.1-1.rf.src.rpm
0e45a3b61666b0b8242a18c577cae925 ffmpeg-0.6.1-1.rf.src.rpm
I have checkd diskspace, different mirrors etc
Are you able to double check the file?

The file is made on SRPM. You may have to use --nomd5 or --nofiledigest to
be able to use it. Blame the RPM developers for this :)

[Dag Wieers]

Post by Grant Street
Hi I saw that ffmpeg 0.6.1 is now in rpmforge ... thank you.
I am tring to install the ffmpeg source rpm but it is giving me an error
...
########################################### [100%]
error: unpacking of archive failed on file
/usr/src/redhat/SOURCES/ffmpeg-0.6.1.tar.bz2;4cfd8243: cpio: MD5 sum mismatch
the srpm has the following md5sum
# md5sum ffmpeg-0.6.1-1.rf.src.rpm
0e45a3b61666b0b8242a18c577cae925 ffmpeg-0.6.1-1.rf.src.rpm
I have checkd diskspace, different mirrors etc
Are you able to double check the file?

The file is made on SRPM. You may have to use --nomd5 or --nofiledigest to
be able to use it. Blame the RPM developers for this :)

[Grant Street]

Hi I saw that ffmpeg 0.6.1 is now in rpmforge ... thank you.

I am tring to install the ffmpeg source rpm but it is giving me an error

...
########################################### [100%]
error: unpacking of archive failed on file
/usr/src/redhat/SOURCES/ffmpeg-0.6.1.tar.bz2;4cfd8243: cpio: MD5 sum
mismatch

the srpm has the following md5sum
# md5sum ffmpeg-0.6.1-1.rf.src.rpm
0e45a3b61666b0b8242a18c577cae925 ffmpeg-0.6.1-1.rf.src.rpm

I have checkd diskspace, different mirrors etc

Are you able to double check the file?

Grant

Post by Grant Street

Post by Dag Wieers

Post by Grant Street
I'm in the process of creating a custom ffmpeg based on 0.6.1 but there are a
few dependancies that have to be updated.

....

Post by Dag Wieers

Post by Grant Street
So before I go through uninstalling vlc,mplayer, libquicktime, ffmpeg and
recompiling them all, I was wondering if I could help you guys, talk about
caveats or should I go it alone.

I am planning to do the same, in fact I have been delaying this for RHEL6
as it impacts RHEL5 and RHEL4 too.

Do you need some help? do you want me to get started and submit spec
files? Have you done much already?
Grant

[Grant Street]

Hi I saw that ffmpeg 0.6.1 is now in rpmforge ... thank you.

I am tring to install the ffmpeg source rpm but it is giving me an error

...
########################################### [100%]
error: unpacking of archive failed on file
/usr/src/redhat/SOURCES/ffmpeg-0.6.1.tar.bz2;4cfd8243: cpio: MD5 sum
mismatch

the srpm has the following md5sum
# md5sum ffmpeg-0.6.1-1.rf.src.rpm
0e45a3b61666b0b8242a18c577cae925 ffmpeg-0.6.1-1.rf.src.rpm

I have checkd diskspace, different mirrors etc

Are you able to double check the file?

Grant

Post by Grant Street

Post by Dag Wieers

Post by Grant Street
I'm in the process of creating a custom ffmpeg based on 0.6.1 but there are a
few dependancies that have to be updated.

....

Post by Dag Wieers

Post by Grant Street
So before I go through uninstalling vlc,mplayer, libquicktime, ffmpeg and
recompiling them all, I was wondering if I could help you guys, talk about
caveats or should I go it alone.

I am planning to do the same, in fact I have been delaying this for RHEL6
as it impacts RHEL5 and RHEL4 too.

Do you need some help? do you want me to get started and submit spec
files? Have you done much already?
Grant

[Grant Street]

Hi I saw that ffmpeg 0.6.1 is now in rpmforge ... thank you.

I am tring to install the ffmpeg source rpm but it is giving me an error

...
########################################### [100%]
error: unpacking of archive failed on file
/usr/src/redhat/SOURCES/ffmpeg-0.6.1.tar.bz2;4cfd8243: cpio: MD5 sum
mismatch

the srpm has the following md5sum
# md5sum ffmpeg-0.6.1-1.rf.src.rpm
0e45a3b61666b0b8242a18c577cae925 ffmpeg-0.6.1-1.rf.src.rpm

I have checkd diskspace, different mirrors etc

Are you able to double check the file?

Grant

Post by Grant Street

Post by Dag Wieers

Post by Grant Street
I'm in the process of creating a custom ffmpeg based on 0.6.1 but there are a
few dependancies that have to be updated.

....

Post by Dag Wieers

Post by Grant Street
So before I go through uninstalling vlc,mplayer, libquicktime, ffmpeg and
recompiling them all, I was wondering if I could help you guys, talk about
caveats or should I go it alone.

I am planning to do the same, in fact I have been delaying this for RHEL6
as it impacts RHEL5 and RHEL4 too.

Do you need some help? do you want me to get started and submit spec
files? Have you done much already?
Grant

[Grant Street]

Hi I saw that ffmpeg 0.6.1 is now in rpmforge ... thank you.

I am tring to install the ffmpeg source rpm but it is giving me an error

...
########################################### [100%]
error: unpacking of archive failed on file
/usr/src/redhat/SOURCES/ffmpeg-0.6.1.tar.bz2;4cfd8243: cpio: MD5 sum
mismatch

the srpm has the following md5sum
# md5sum ffmpeg-0.6.1-1.rf.src.rpm
0e45a3b61666b0b8242a18c577cae925 ffmpeg-0.6.1-1.rf.src.rpm

I have checkd diskspace, different mirrors etc

Are you able to double check the file?

Grant

Post by Grant Street

Post by Dag Wieers

Post by Grant Street
I'm in the process of creating a custom ffmpeg based on 0.6.1 but there are a
few dependancies that have to be updated.

....

Post by Dag Wieers

Post by Grant Street
So before I go through uninstalling vlc,mplayer, libquicktime, ffmpeg and
recompiling them all, I was wondering if I could help you guys, talk about
caveats or should I go it alone.

I am planning to do the same, in fact I have been delaying this for RHEL6
as it impacts RHEL5 and RHEL4 too.

Do you need some help? do you want me to get started and submit spec
files? Have you done much already?
Grant

[Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski]

[...]

Post by Dag Wieers

Post by Grant Street
So before I go through uninstalling vlc,mplayer, libquicktime, ffmpeg and
recompiling them all, I was wondering if I could help you guys, talk about
caveats or should I go it alone.

I am planning to do the same, in fact I have been delaying this for RHEL6
as it impacts RHEL5 and RHEL4 too.

FWIW, I'm planning to do an update in RPMFusion before Christmas, so feel
free to use my work if you don't do it earlier.

[...]

Post by Dag Wieers
PS I still regret that Fedora never made a good standard for library
packages like PLD and Mandrake had. Using the soname and packaging
libraries _always_ separate to other things.

You can always submit an update to the packaging guidelines. I'll put it on
my TODO list. If you have any specific suggestions, I'm all ears.

Regards,
Dominik

[Grant Street]

Post by Dag Wieers

Post by Grant Street
I'm in the process of creating a custom ffmpeg based on 0.6.1 but there are a
few dependancies that have to be updated.

....

Post by Dag Wieers

Post by Grant Street
So before I go through uninstalling vlc,mplayer, libquicktime, ffmpeg and
recompiling them all, I was wondering if I could help you guys, talk about
caveats or should I go it alone.

I am planning to do the same, in fact I have been delaying this for RHEL6
as it impacts RHEL5 and RHEL4 too.

Do you need some help? do you want me to get started and submit spec
files? Have you done much already?

Grant

[Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski]

[...]

Post by Dag Wieers

Post by Grant Street
So before I go through uninstalling vlc,mplayer, libquicktime, ffmpeg and
recompiling them all, I was wondering if I could help you guys, talk about
caveats or should I go it alone.

I am planning to do the same, in fact I have been delaying this for RHEL6
as it impacts RHEL5 and RHEL4 too.

FWIW, I'm planning to do an update in RPMFusion before Christmas, so feel
free to use my work if you don't do it earlier.

[...]

Post by Dag Wieers
PS I still regret that Fedora never made a good standard for library
packages like PLD and Mandrake had. Using the soname and packaging
libraries _always_ separate to other things.

You can always submit an update to the packaging guidelines. I'll put it on
my TODO list. If you have any specific suggestions, I'm all ears.

Regards,
Dominik

[Grant Street]

Post by Dag Wieers

Post by Grant Street
I'm in the process of creating a custom ffmpeg based on 0.6.1 but there are a
few dependancies that have to be updated.

....

Post by Dag Wieers

Post by Grant Street
So before I go through uninstalling vlc,mplayer, libquicktime, ffmpeg and
recompiling them all, I was wondering if I could help you guys, talk about
caveats or should I go it alone.

I am planning to do the same, in fact I have been delaying this for RHEL6
as it impacts RHEL5 and RHEL4 too.

Do you need some help? do you want me to get started and submit spec
files? Have you done much already?

Grant

[Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski]

[...]

Post by Dag Wieers

Post by Grant Street
So before I go through uninstalling vlc,mplayer, libquicktime, ffmpeg and
recompiling them all, I was wondering if I could help you guys, talk about
caveats or should I go it alone.

I am planning to do the same, in fact I have been delaying this for RHEL6
as it impacts RHEL5 and RHEL4 too.

FWIW, I'm planning to do an update in RPMFusion before Christmas, so feel
free to use my work if you don't do it earlier.

[...]

Post by Dag Wieers
PS I still regret that Fedora never made a good standard for library
packages like PLD and Mandrake had. Using the soname and packaging
libraries _always_ separate to other things.

You can always submit an update to the packaging guidelines. I'll put it on
my TODO list. If you have any specific suggestions, I'm all ears.

Regards,
Dominik

[Grant Street]

Post by Dag Wieers

Post by Grant Street
I'm in the process of creating a custom ffmpeg based on 0.6.1 but there are a
few dependancies that have to be updated.

....

Post by Dag Wieers

Post by Grant Street
So before I go through uninstalling vlc,mplayer, libquicktime, ffmpeg and
recompiling them all, I was wondering if I could help you guys, talk about
caveats or should I go it alone.

I am planning to do the same, in fact I have been delaying this for RHEL6
as it impacts RHEL5 and RHEL4 too.

Do you need some help? do you want me to get started and submit spec
files? Have you done much already?

Grant

[Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski]

[...]

Post by Dag Wieers

Post by Grant Street
So before I go through uninstalling vlc,mplayer, libquicktime, ffmpeg and
recompiling them all, I was wondering if I could help you guys, talk about
caveats or should I go it alone.

I am planning to do the same, in fact I have been delaying this for RHEL6
as it impacts RHEL5 and RHEL4 too.

FWIW, I'm planning to do an update in RPMFusion before Christmas, so feel
free to use my work if you don't do it earlier.

[...]

Post by Dag Wieers
PS I still regret that Fedora never made a good standard for library
packages like PLD and Mandrake had. Using the soname and packaging
libraries _always_ separate to other things.

You can always submit an update to the packaging guidelines. I'll put it on
my TODO list. If you have any specific suggestions, I'm all ears.

Regards,
Dominik

[Grant Street]

Post by Dag Wieers

Post by Grant Street
I'm in the process of creating a custom ffmpeg based on 0.6.1 but there are a
few dependancies that have to be updated.

....

Post by Dag Wieers

Post by Grant Street
So before I go through uninstalling vlc,mplayer, libquicktime, ffmpeg and
recompiling them all, I was wondering if I could help you guys, talk about
caveats or should I go it alone.

I am planning to do the same, in fact I have been delaying this for RHEL6
as it impacts RHEL5 and RHEL4 too.

Do you need some help? do you want me to get started and submit spec
files? Have you done much already?

Grant

[Grant Street]

Hello

I know this may be nontrivial but I'm happy to help.

I'm in the process of creating a custom ffmpeg based on 0.6.1 but there
are a few dependancies that have to be updated.

The three main ones I've found so far are
libvorbis ( I was able to get a newer version from atrpms)
libtheora ( I was able to get a newer version from atrpms)
x264 ( the sticky one)

x264 has a library libx264.so.68 that is required by mplayer,
libquicktime, vlc and of course ffmpeg.

I can't compile ffmpeg 0.6.1 because the header file in
/usr/include/x264.h is not compatible. I can't install a newly created
x264-devel rpm because it requires a new x264 which can't be updated
because the libx264.so.68 is required ....

So before I go through uninstalling vlc,mplayer, libquicktime, ffmpeg
and recompiling them all, I was wondering if I could help you guys, talk
about caveats or should I go it alone.

Thanks

Grant

[Dag Wieers]

Post by Grant Street
I know this may be nontrivial but I'm happy to help.
I'm in the process of creating a custom ffmpeg based on 0.6.1 but there are a
few dependancies that have to be updated.
The three main ones I've found so far are
libvorbis ( I was able to get a newer version from atrpms)
libtheora ( I was able to get a newer version from atrpms)
x264 ( the sticky one)
x264 has a library libx264.so.68 that is required by mplayer, libquicktime,
vlc and of course ffmpeg.
I can't compile ffmpeg 0.6.1 because the header file in /usr/include/x264.h
is not compatible. I can't install a newly created x264-devel rpm because it
requires a new x264 which can't be updated because the libx264.so.68 is
required ....
So before I go through uninstalling vlc,mplayer, libquicktime, ffmpeg and
recompiling them all, I was wondering if I could help you guys, talk about
caveats or should I go it alone.

I am planning to do the same, in fact I have been delaying this for RHEL6
as it impacts RHEL5 and RHEL4 too.

In the past the hard problem was to find a combination of libraries that
works for everything (and hopefully also builds for older distributions).
It feels like throwing stuff in your christmas tree, shaking it and
collecting what fell off, and repeat a few times.

Unfortunately the whole process could take hours and it would have been
much easier if eg. we had compatibility libraries for some of the pieces.

PS I still regret that Fedora never made a good standard for library
packages like PLD and Mandrake had. Using the soname and packaging
libraries _always_ separate to other things.

[Grant Street]

Hello

I know this may be nontrivial but I'm happy to help.

I'm in the process of creating a custom ffmpeg based on 0.6.1 but there
are a few dependancies that have to be updated.

The three main ones I've found so far are
libvorbis ( I was able to get a newer version from atrpms)
libtheora ( I was able to get a newer version from atrpms)
x264 ( the sticky one)

x264 has a library libx264.so.68 that is required by mplayer,
libquicktime, vlc and of course ffmpeg.

I can't compile ffmpeg 0.6.1 because the header file in
/usr/include/x264.h is not compatible. I can't install a newly created
x264-devel rpm because it requires a new x264 which can't be updated
because the libx264.so.68 is required ....

So before I go through uninstalling vlc,mplayer, libquicktime, ffmpeg
and recompiling them all, I was wondering if I could help you guys, talk
about caveats or should I go it alone.

Thanks

Grant

[Dag Wieers]

Post by Grant Street
I know this may be nontrivial but I'm happy to help.
I'm in the process of creating a custom ffmpeg based on 0.6.1 but there are a
few dependancies that have to be updated.
The three main ones I've found so far are
libvorbis ( I was able to get a newer version from atrpms)
libtheora ( I was able to get a newer version from atrpms)
x264 ( the sticky one)
x264 has a library libx264.so.68 that is required by mplayer, libquicktime,
vlc and of course ffmpeg.
I can't compile ffmpeg 0.6.1 because the header file in /usr/include/x264.h
is not compatible. I can't install a newly created x264-devel rpm because it
requires a new x264 which can't be updated because the libx264.so.68 is
required ....
So before I go through uninstalling vlc,mplayer, libquicktime, ffmpeg and
recompiling them all, I was wondering if I could help you guys, talk about
caveats or should I go it alone.

I am planning to do the same, in fact I have been delaying this for RHEL6
as it impacts RHEL5 and RHEL4 too.

In the past the hard problem was to find a combination of libraries that
works for everything (and hopefully also builds for older distributions).
It feels like throwing stuff in your christmas tree, shaking it and
collecting what fell off, and repeat a few times.

Unfortunately the whole process could take hours and it would have been
much easier if eg. we had compatibility libraries for some of the pieces.

PS I still regret that Fedora never made a good standard for library
packages like PLD and Mandrake had. Using the soname and packaging
libraries _always_ separate to other things.

[Grant Street]

Hello

I know this may be nontrivial but I'm happy to help.

I'm in the process of creating a custom ffmpeg based on 0.6.1 but there
are a few dependancies that have to be updated.

The three main ones I've found so far are
libvorbis ( I was able to get a newer version from atrpms)
libtheora ( I was able to get a newer version from atrpms)
x264 ( the sticky one)

x264 has a library libx264.so.68 that is required by mplayer,
libquicktime, vlc and of course ffmpeg.

I can't compile ffmpeg 0.6.1 because the header file in
/usr/include/x264.h is not compatible. I can't install a newly created
x264-devel rpm because it requires a new x264 which can't be updated
because the libx264.so.68 is required ....

So before I go through uninstalling vlc,mplayer, libquicktime, ffmpeg
and recompiling them all, I was wondering if I could help you guys, talk
about caveats or should I go it alone.

Thanks

Grant

[Dag Wieers]

Post by Grant Street
I know this may be nontrivial but I'm happy to help.
I'm in the process of creating a custom ffmpeg based on 0.6.1 but there are a
few dependancies that have to be updated.
The three main ones I've found so far are
libvorbis ( I was able to get a newer version from atrpms)
libtheora ( I was able to get a newer version from atrpms)
x264 ( the sticky one)
x264 has a library libx264.so.68 that is required by mplayer, libquicktime,
vlc and of course ffmpeg.
I can't compile ffmpeg 0.6.1 because the header file in /usr/include/x264.h
is not compatible. I can't install a newly created x264-devel rpm because it
requires a new x264 which can't be updated because the libx264.so.68 is
required ....
So before I go through uninstalling vlc,mplayer, libquicktime, ffmpeg and
recompiling them all, I was wondering if I could help you guys, talk about
caveats or should I go it alone.

I am planning to do the same, in fact I have been delaying this for RHEL6
as it impacts RHEL5 and RHEL4 too.

In the past the hard problem was to find a combination of libraries that
works for everything (and hopefully also builds for older distributions).
It feels like throwing stuff in your christmas tree, shaking it and
collecting what fell off, and repeat a few times.

Unfortunately the whole process could take hours and it would have been
much easier if eg. we had compatibility libraries for some of the pieces.

PS I still regret that Fedora never made a good standard for library
packages like PLD and Mandrake had. Using the soname and packaging
libraries _always_ separate to other things.

[Grant Street]

Hello

I know this may be nontrivial but I'm happy to help.

I'm in the process of creating a custom ffmpeg based on 0.6.1 but there
are a few dependancies that have to be updated.

The three main ones I've found so far are
libvorbis ( I was able to get a newer version from atrpms)
libtheora ( I was able to get a newer version from atrpms)
x264 ( the sticky one)

x264 has a library libx264.so.68 that is required by mplayer,
libquicktime, vlc and of course ffmpeg.

I can't compile ffmpeg 0.6.1 because the header file in
/usr/include/x264.h is not compatible. I can't install a newly created
x264-devel rpm because it requires a new x264 which can't be updated
because the libx264.so.68 is required ....

So before I go through uninstalling vlc,mplayer, libquicktime, ffmpeg
and recompiling them all, I was wondering if I could help you guys, talk
about caveats or should I go it alone.

Thanks

Grant

[Dag Wieers]

Post by Grant Street
I know this may be nontrivial but I'm happy to help.
I'm in the process of creating a custom ffmpeg based on 0.6.1 but there are a
few dependancies that have to be updated.
The three main ones I've found so far are
libvorbis ( I was able to get a newer version from atrpms)
libtheora ( I was able to get a newer version from atrpms)
x264 ( the sticky one)
x264 has a library libx264.so.68 that is required by mplayer, libquicktime,
vlc and of course ffmpeg.
I can't compile ffmpeg 0.6.1 because the header file in /usr/include/x264.h
is not compatible. I can't install a newly created x264-devel rpm because it
requires a new x264 which can't be updated because the libx264.so.68 is
required ....
So before I go through uninstalling vlc,mplayer, libquicktime, ffmpeg and
recompiling them all, I was wondering if I could help you guys, talk about
caveats or should I go it alone.

I am planning to do the same, in fact I have been delaying this for RHEL6
as it impacts RHEL5 and RHEL4 too.

In the past the hard problem was to find a combination of libraries that
works for everything (and hopefully also builds for older distributions).
It feels like throwing stuff in your christmas tree, shaking it and
collecting what fell off, and repeat a few times.

Unfortunately the whole process could take hours and it would have been
much easier if eg. we had compatibility libraries for some of the pieces.

PS I still regret that Fedora never made a good standard for library
packages like PLD and Mandrake had. Using the soname and packaging
libraries _always_ separate to other things.