[mythtv] Planned update of RPM Fusion packages to 0.26

Richard Shaw hobbes1069 at gmail.com
Tue Oct 23 18:12:32 UTC 2012


On Tue, Oct 23, 2012 at 1:04 PM, John Pilkington <J.Pilk at tesco.net> wrote:
> I suppose this must be an ATrpms/RPM_Fusion difference, but I find I have
> many ATrpms libx264_X packages installed, X <= 118, and no x264 packages,
> although they exist in the repo in versions 112, 114, 115 and 118.  I'm not
> aware of any problems with them but I don't use 264 often;  ATrpms is
> currently without mythtv >= 0.25 although I'm running  0.25.2.

Yes. Unlike RPM Fusion, ATRPMs has chosen to allow duplicate packaging
(i.e. providing a package that another repository already provides)
which is why it had RHEL MythTV packages for some time and I only
recently got EL-6 packages done because I had to go through RHEL,
Fedora EPEL, and RPM Fusion EPEL to get EL-6 branches of all the
required packages which took quite a bit of time.

Actually, now that I think about it, while what I said was true, it's
not really the problem in this particular situation. At RPM Fusion we
pretty much strictly follow the Fedora guidelines, the only exception
is the types of packages we allow. Because of that, soname bumps and
major package updates are discouraged within a Fedora release. I asked
for an exception but it was denied.

ATRPMs is pretty much just run by Axel so he can do whatever he wants.

Thanks,
Richard


More information about the mythtv-dev mailing list