Re: mpg123 not included, why?

[Ian Malone]

On 11 January 2016 at 01:35, Tim  wrote:
> Allegedly, on or about 10 January 2016, Philip Brown sent:
>> however, in a couple of very simple steps, this gives me a very usable
>> multimedia system on my default fedora workstation without having to
>> install any additional repos. which for me is awesome.
>>
>> and I can confirm all I had to do was download and extract .so files
>> from the following 2 rpms:
>> http://download1.rpmfusion.org/free/fedora/releases/22/Everything/x86_64/os/repoview/gstreamer1-libav.html
>> http://download1.rpmfusion.org/free/fedora/releases/22/Everything/x86_64/os/repoview/gstreamer-plugins-ugly.html
>>
>> really that simple, no dealing with runtime linker search paths,
>> additional rpm dependencies  or anything like that.
>>
>> ok I admit, in the long run, maybe it is planless, however this is not
>> intended as a complete solution intended to work forever, it will get
>> you up and running now and will probably keep working in the future
>> but as listed above it is not a repo sysyem with dnf/yum updates and
>> there will come a day when dependencies mismatch but... c'est la vie.
>
> That's all very well, if you never intend to do a yum update again, in
> the future.  But if you do, then you've got to deal with all the
> breakage that ensues.  Which is going to be more work than simply
> installing the repo, and installing the files you need, letting the
> system do the work for you.
>

Yes, this is why I don't see any benefit to this approach at all. You
have to manually download the right rpms, extract libraries, move them
into place and then they'll stop working if you ever update the
installed programs. On top of which codecs are a great target for
vulnerabilities, so worth keeping them up to date. To me this seems
much more work than installing the rpmfusion repo, which involves
clicking two links at , and you get a less
reliable setup out of it. The rpmfusion guys do a great job and it
integrates with the fedora repos, many of the people there are also
fedora project packagers. Particularly over things like gstreamer
where the plugins provided will work with fedora gstreamer directly.

-- 
imalone
http://ibmalone.blogspot.co.uk
-- 
users mailing list
users@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe or change subscription options:
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users
Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
Have a question? Ask away: http://ask.fedoraproject.org

Re: mpg123 not included, why?

[Patrick O'Callaghan]

On Sat, 2016-01-09 at 20:37 +0100, Philip Brown wrote:
> yeah, well, that's just, like, your opinion, man.

Apparently it's not just mine.

poc
-- 
users mailing list
users@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe or change subscription options:
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users
Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
Have a question? Ask away: http://ask.fedoraproject.org

Re: mpg123 not included, why?

[Patrick O'Callaghan]

On Mon, 2016-01-11 at 10:48 +, Ian Malone wrote:
> On 11 January 2016 at 01:35, Tim 
> wrote:
> > Allegedly, on or about 10 January 2016, Philip Brown sent:
> > > however, in a couple of very simple steps, this gives me a very
> > > usable
> > > multimedia system on my default fedora workstation without having
> > > to
> > > install any additional repos. which for me is awesome.
> > > 
> > > and I can confirm all I had to do was download and extract .so
> > > files
> > > from the following 2 rpms:
> > > http://download1.rpmfusion.org/free/fedora/releases/22/Everything
> > > /x86_64/os/repoview/gstreamer1-libav.html
> > > http://download1.rpmfusion.org/free/fedora/releases/22/Everything
> > > /x86_64/os/repoview/gstreamer-plugins-ugly.html
> > > 
> > > really that simple, no dealing with runtime linker search paths,
> > > additional rpm dependencies  or anything like that.
> > > 
> > > ok I admit, in the long run, maybe it is planless, however this
> > > is not
> > > intended as a complete solution intended to work forever, it will
> > > get
> > > you up and running now and will probably keep working in the
> > > future
> > > but as listed above it is not a repo sysyem with dnf/yum updates
> > > and
> > > there will come a day when dependencies mismatch but... c'est la
> > > vie.
> > 
> > That's all very well, if you never intend to do a yum update again,
> > in
> > the future.  But if you do, then you've got to deal with all the
> > breakage that ensues.  Which is going to be more work than simply
> > installing the repo, and installing the files you need, letting the
> > system do the work for you.
> > 
> 
> Yes, this is why I don't see any benefit to this approach at all. You
> have to manually download the right rpms, extract libraries, move
> them
> into place and then they'll stop working if you ever update the
> installed programs. On top of which codecs are a great target for
> vulnerabilities, so worth keeping them up to date. To me this seems
> much more work than installing the rpmfusion repo, which involves
> clicking two links at , and you get a less
> reliable setup out of it. The rpmfusion guys do a great job and it
> integrates with the fedora repos, many of the people there are also
> fedora project packagers. Particularly over things like gstreamer
> where the plugins provided will work with fedora gstreamer directly.

+1

poc
-- 
users mailing list
users@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe or change subscription options:
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users
Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
Have a question? Ask away: http://ask.fedoraproject.org

Re: mpg123 not included, why?

[Philip Brown]

On 01/11/2016 11:48 AM, Ian Malone wrote:

On 11 January 2016 at 01:35, Tim  wrote:

Allegedly, on or about 10 January 2016, Philip Brown sent:

however, in a couple of very simple steps, this gives me a very usable
multimedia system on my default fedora workstation without having to
install any additional repos. which for me is awesome.

and I can confirm all I had to do was download and extract .so files
from the following 2 rpms:
http://download1.rpmfusion.org/free/fedora/releases/22/Everything/x86_64/os/repoview/gstreamer1-libav.html
http://download1.rpmfusion.org/free/fedora/releases/22/Everything/x86_64/os/repoview/gstreamer-plugins-ugly.html

really that simple, no dealing with runtime linker search paths,
additional rpm dependencies  or anything like that.

ok I admit, in the long run, maybe it is planless, however this is not
intended as a complete solution intended to work forever, it will get
you up and running now and will probably keep working in the future
but as listed above it is not a repo sysyem with dnf/yum updates and
there will come a day when dependencies mismatch but... c'est la vie.

That's all very well, if you never intend to do a yum update again, in
the future.  But if you do, then you've got to deal with all the
breakage that ensues.  Which is going to be more work than simply
installing the repo, and installing the files you need, letting the
system do the work for you.


Yes, this is why I don't see any benefit to this approach at all. You
have to manually download the right rpms, extract libraries, move them
into place and then they'll stop working if you ever update the
installed programs. On top of which codecs are a great target for
vulnerabilities, so worth keeping them up to date. To me this seems
much more work than installing the rpmfusion repo, which involves
clicking two links at , and you get a less
reliable setup out of it. The rpmfusion guys do a great job and it
integrates with the fedora repos, many of the people there are also
fedora project packagers. Particularly over things like gstreamer
where the plugins provided will work with fedora gstreamer directly.



never be able to run yum again?
I have been running this workaround for close to a year and dnf/yum is 
still fully operational.
I am merely placing a few library files in my home folder. pray tell, 
how is this going to blow up my system???


i understand you have nothing against the RPMFusion system and therefore 
there would be absolutely no benefit for you. however the poster whom I 
replied to, like me, had concerns and this is simply my workaround.





--
 


--
users mailing list
users@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe or change subscription options:
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users
Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
Have a question? Ask away: http://ask.fedoraproject.org

Re: mpg123 not included, why?

[Ian Malone]

On 11 January 2016 at 11:42, Philip Brown  wrote:
> On 01/11/2016 11:48 AM, Ian Malone wrote:
>>
>> On 11 January 2016 at 01:35, Tim  wrote:
>>>
>>> Allegedly, on or about 10 January 2016, Philip Brown sent:

 however, in a couple of very simple steps, this gives me a very usable
 multimedia system on my default fedora workstation without having to
 install any additional repos. which for me is awesome.

 and I can confirm all I had to do was download and extract .so files
 from the following 2 rpms:

 http://download1.rpmfusion.org/free/fedora/releases/22/Everything/x86_64/os/repoview/gstreamer1-libav.html

 http://download1.rpmfusion.org/free/fedora/releases/22/Everything/x86_64/os/repoview/gstreamer-plugins-ugly.html

 really that simple, no dealing with runtime linker search paths,
 additional rpm dependencies  or anything like that.

 ok I admit, in the long run, maybe it is planless, however this is not
 intended as a complete solution intended to work forever, it will get
 you up and running now and will probably keep working in the future
 but as listed above it is not a repo sysyem with dnf/yum updates and
 there will come a day when dependencies mismatch but... c'est la vie.
>>>
>>> That's all very well, if you never intend to do a yum update again, in
>>> the future.  But if you do, then you've got to deal with all the
>>> breakage that ensues.  Which is going to be more work than simply
>>> installing the repo, and installing the files you need, letting the
>>> system do the work for you.
>>>
>> Yes, this is why I don't see any benefit to this approach at all. You
>> have to manually download the right rpms, extract libraries, move them
>> into place and then they'll stop working if you ever update the
>> installed programs. On top of which codecs are a great target for
>> vulnerabilities, so worth keeping them up to date. To me this seems
>> much more work than installing the rpmfusion repo, which involves
>> clicking two links at , and you get a less
>> reliable setup out of it. The rpmfusion guys do a great job and it
>> integrates with the fedora repos, many of the people there are also
>> fedora project packagers. Particularly over things like gstreamer
>> where the plugins provided will work with fedora gstreamer directly.
>>
>
> never be able to run yum again?
> I have been running this workaround for close to a year and dnf/yum is still
> fully operational.
> I am merely placing a few library files in my home folder. pray tell, how is
> this going to blow up my system???
>

Not what I said.

> i understand you have nothing against the RPMFusion system and therefore
> there would be absolutely no benefit for you. however the poster whom I
> replied to, like me, had concerns and this is simply my workaround.
>
>

What is your concern about RPMFusion? You seem to imply you have
something against it.

-- 
imalone
http://ibmalone.blogspot.co.uk
-- 
users mailing list
users@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe or change subscription options:
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users
Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
Have a question? Ask away: http://ask.fedoraproject.org

Re: mpg123 not included, why?

[Philip Brown]

On 01/11/2016 01:21 PM, Ian Malone wrote:

On 11 January 2016 at 11:42, Philip Brown  wrote:

On 01/11/2016 11:48 AM, Ian Malone wrote:

On 11 January 2016 at 01:35, Tim  wrote:

Allegedly, on or about 10 January 2016, Philip Brown sent:

however, in a couple of very simple steps, this gives me a very usable
multimedia system on my default fedora workstation without having to
install any additional repos. which for me is awesome.

and I can confirm all I had to do was download and extract .so files
from the following 2 rpms:

http://download1.rpmfusion.org/free/fedora/releases/22/Everything/x86_64/os/repoview/gstreamer1-libav.html

http://download1.rpmfusion.org/free/fedora/releases/22/Everything/x86_64/os/repoview/gstreamer-plugins-ugly.html

really that simple, no dealing with runtime linker search paths,
additional rpm dependencies  or anything like that.

ok I admit, in the long run, maybe it is planless, however this is not
intended as a complete solution intended to work forever, it will get
you up and running now and will probably keep working in the future
but as listed above it is not a repo sysyem with dnf/yum updates and
there will come a day when dependencies mismatch but... c'est la vie.

That's all very well, if you never intend to do a yum update again, in
the future.  But if you do, then you've got to deal with all the
breakage that ensues.  Which is going to be more work than simply
installing the repo, and installing the files you need, letting the
system do the work for you.


Yes, this is why I don't see any benefit to this approach at all. You
have to manually download the right rpms, extract libraries, move them
into place and then they'll stop working if you ever update the
installed programs. On top of which codecs are a great target for
vulnerabilities, so worth keeping them up to date. To me this seems
much more work than installing the rpmfusion repo, which involves
clicking two links at , and you get a less
reliable setup out of it. The rpmfusion guys do a great job and it
integrates with the fedora repos, many of the people there are also
fedora project packagers. Particularly over things like gstreamer
where the plugins provided will work with fedora gstreamer directly.


never be able to run yum again?
I have been running this workaround for close to a year and dnf/yum is still
fully operational.
I am merely placing a few library files in my home folder. pray tell, how is
this going to blow up my system???


Not what I said.


that is reassuring =)



i understand you have nothing against the RPMFusion system and therefore
there would be absolutely no benefit for you. however the poster whom I
replied to, like me, had concerns and this is simply my workaround.



What is your concern about RPMFusion? You seem to imply you have
something against it.

bad past experience, could have been livna, it was a long time ago and I 
never used it since. I imagine it should be a lot better now, however 
seeing as I only need these few files I prefer just to download them 
rather than having an extra repo system.  The updates for these rpms are 
few and far between (last updates were Sept 2014 and May 2015) so it 
does not really add much to my workload.




--
 


--
users mailing list
users@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe or change subscription options:
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users
Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
Have a question? Ask away: http://ask.fedoraproject.org

Re: rpm spec file %define

[Michael Schwendt]

On Sun, 10 Jan 2016 21:57:21 +, Joseph L. Casale wrote:

> For the academic sake only, does a facility exist to defer evaluation
> for this use case?

It would get kinda ugly, but you could re-expand the macro body:

%global foo-bar_dir %{expand:%(ls -d 
%{_builddir}/%{name}-%{version}/foo-bar-*-baz |grep -o '[^/]*$')}
-- 
users mailing list
users@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe or change subscription options:
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users
Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
Have a question? Ask away: http://ask.fedoraproject.org

Re: rpm spec file %define

[Joseph L. Casale]

>> For the academic sake only, does a facility exist to defer evaluation
>> for this use case?
>
>It would get kinda ugly, but you could re-expand the macro body:
>
>%global foo-bar_dir %{expand:%(ls -d 
>%{_builddir}/%{name}-%{version}/foo-bar-*-baz |grep -o '[^/]*$')}

Thanks Michael,
jlc
-- 
users mailing list
users@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe or change subscription options:
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users
Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
Have a question? Ask away: http://ask.fedoraproject.org

Re: mpg123 not included, why?

[Fernando Cassia]

On Sun, Jan 10, 2016 at 4:41 PM, Michael Schwendt 
wrote:

> And a "dnf install gstreamer1-plugins\*" here wants to install
> "35 Packages", while some dependencies probably are installed already.
>

That's why I mentioned mpg123 earlier in the thread. Most mp3 players in
the Linux world require a mess of dependencies.

Call me old fashioned, but I prefer a static, single binary to perform a
simple task like playing a mp3 file - you know, the Unix way, do one thing
and do it self-cointained.

When I've the time, I''ll put up a site just to provide statically linked
builds of tools like mpg123 (if needed, I'm not sure it needs any
dependencies or external libs), one I can run even while booting from a
LiveCD without messing with dnf or having to touch the dnf databases
(which, as you know, is time consuming on the initial run).

The more I think it, the more sense http://sta.li/ makes. :-p
FC



-- 
During times of Universal Deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary
act
Durante épocas de Engaño Universal, decir la verdad se convierte en un Acto
Revolucionario
- George Orwell
-- 
users mailing list
users@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe or change subscription options:
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users
Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
Have a question? Ask away: http://ask.fedoraproject.org

Re: mpg123 not included, why?

[Michael Schwendt]

On Sun, 10 Jan 2016 23:43:38 +0100, Philip Brown wrote:

> > And a "dnf install gstreamer1-plugins\*" here wants to install
> > "35 Packages", while some dependencies probably are installed already.  
> Ok Michael, I can see you don't like this.
> 
> however, in a couple of very simple steps, this gives me a very usable 
> multimedia system on my default fedora workstation without having to 
> install any additional repos. which for me is awesome.
> 
> and I can confirm all I had to do was download and extract .so files 
> from the following 2 rpms:
> http://download1.rpmfusion.org/free/fedora/releases/22/Everything/x86_64/os/repoview/gstreamer1-libav.html
> http://download1.rpmfusion.org/free/fedora/releases/22/Everything/x86_64/os/repoview/gstreamer-plugins-ugly.html
> 

That doesn't make it much better, since it mixes plugins for GStreamer 0.10.x
and GStreamer 1.x, and applications based on either one don't support the
other one.

And while you would get less plugins, if installing only the stuff from those
two rpms, there still is a dependency on two external packages. If "libmad"
for MP3 decoding is not installed already, the GStreamer plugin using it would
not work at all:

# dnf install gstreamer1-libav gstreamer-plugins-ugly
Dependencies resolved.

 PackageArch   Version Repository  Size

Installing:
 gstreamer-plugins-ugly
x86_64 0.10.19-18.fc23 rpmfusion-free-updates-testing 333 k
 gstreamer1-libav   x86_64 1.6.2-1.fc23rpmfusion-free-updates-testing 230 k
 libmad x86_64 0.15.1b-17.fc23 rpmfusion-free-updates-testing  78 k
 opencore-amr   x86_64 0.1.3-4.fc22rpmfusion-free 178 k

Transaction Summary

Install  4 Packages

Total download size: 819 k
Installed size: 2.0 M
Is this ok [y/N]: 

> really that simple, no dealing with runtime linker search paths, 
> additional rpm dependencies  or anything like that.

Wrong. As shown above. You would need to extract the "libmad" shared lib
and all other runtime dependencies in a similar way to decouple it from the
RPM based system installation. Or else any package update could replace libmad
with an upgrade that's incompatible with the plugins you've extracted.
-- 
users mailing list
users@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe or change subscription options:
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users
Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
Have a question? Ask away: http://ask.fedoraproject.org

Re: mpg123 not included, why?

[Philip Brown]

On 01/11/2016 03:40 PM, Michael Schwendt wrote:

On Sun, 10 Jan 2016 23:43:38 +0100, Philip Brown wrote:


And a "dnf install gstreamer1-plugins\*" here wants to install
"35 Packages", while some dependencies probably are installed already.

Ok Michael, I can see you don't like this.

however, in a couple of very simple steps, this gives me a very usable
multimedia system on my default fedora workstation without having to
install any additional repos. which for me is awesome.

and I can confirm all I had to do was download and extract .so files
from the following 2 rpms:
http://download1.rpmfusion.org/free/fedora/releases/22/Everything/x86_64/os/repoview/gstreamer1-libav.html
http://download1.rpmfusion.org/free/fedora/releases/22/Everything/x86_64/os/repoview/gstreamer-plugins-ugly.html


That doesn't make it much better, since it mixes plugins for GStreamer 0.10.x
and GStreamer 1.x, and applications based on either one don't support the
other one.

And while you would get less plugins, if installing only the stuff from those
two rpms, there still is a dependency on two external packages. If "libmad"
for MP3 decoding is not installed already, the GStreamer plugin using it would
not work at all:

# dnf install gstreamer1-libav gstreamer-plugins-ugly
Dependencies resolved.

  PackageArch   Version Repository  Size

Installing:
  gstreamer-plugins-ugly
 x86_64 0.10.19-18.fc23 rpmfusion-free-updates-testing 333 k
  gstreamer1-libav   x86_64 1.6.2-1.fc23rpmfusion-free-updates-testing 230 k
  libmad x86_64 0.15.1b-17.fc23 rpmfusion-free-updates-testing  78 k
  opencore-amr   x86_64 0.1.3-4.fc22rpmfusion-free 178 k

Transaction Summary

Install  4 Packages

Total download size: 819 k
Installed size: 2.0 M
Is this ok [y/N]:


really that simple, no dealing with runtime linker search paths,
additional rpm dependencies  or anything like that.

Wrong. As shown above. You would need to extract the "libmad" shared lib
and all other runtime dependencies in a similar way to decouple it from the
RPM based system installation. Or else any package update could replace libmad
with an upgrade that's incompatible with the plugins you've extracted.


thanks for explaining this so clearly, I now understand.
If libmad and/or opencore-amr from the standard repos are upgraded to 
where they are incompatible I will certainly try out RPMFusion.



--
 


--
users mailing list
users@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe or change subscription options:
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users
Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
Have a question? Ask away: http://ask.fedoraproject.org

Re: mpg123 not included, why?

[Michael Schwendt]

On Mon, 11 Jan 2016 14:11:13 +0100, Philip Brown wrote:

> > What is your concern about RPMFusion? You seem to imply you have
> > something against it.
> >  
> bad past experience, could have been livna, it was a long time ago and I 
> never used it since. I imagine it should be a lot better now, however 
> seeing as I only need these few files I prefer just to download them 
> rather than having an extra repo system.  The updates for these rpms are 
> few and far between (last updates were Sept 2014 and May 2015) so it 
> does not really add much to my workload.

But you download the files from them nevertheless?

Wouldn't it be much more convenient to turn off the repo after installing
the needed packages? That way you will benefit from dependency checks
during normal updates of your installation. And you can one-shot re-enable
the repo any time to check whether there are updates for those few packages
you want. The --enablerepo= option for Yum and DNF exists for such usage
patterns.
-- 
users mailing list
users@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe or change subscription options:
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users
Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
Have a question? Ask away: http://ask.fedoraproject.org

Re: mpg123 not included, why?

[Tim]

Allegedly, on or about 11 January 2016, Philip Brown sent:
> bad past experience, could have been livna, it was a long time ago and
> I never used it since. I imagine it should be a lot better now,
> however seeing as I only need these few files I prefer just to
> download them rather than having an extra repo system.  The updates
> for these rpms are few and far between (last updates were Sept 2014
> and May 2015) so it does not really add much to my workload. 

Kinda hard to relate ancient experience to what might happen now, one
doesn't necessarily demand the other.

But still, there are easier and better ways to do it than force
hand-unpacked files from an archive onto a system.  Such as:

Download the few rpm files that concern you,
then use yum localinstall with those files (or dnf).

They're installed properly, then.  And if other files are needed at the
same time, yum will get them, too.  The files are in the database so
that other things are aware of their presence.  And they're easily
removed, without breaking other things.

It's just not a good idea to jam in files.  It's an even worse idea to
advise someone to do it.  More so if it's not given with full warning.

-- 
[tim@localhost ~]$ uname -rsvp
Linux 3.9.10-100.fc17.x86_64 #1 SMP Sun Jul 14 01:31:27 UTC 2013 x86_64

Boilerplate:  All mail to my mailbox is automatically deleted, there is
no point trying to privately email me, I only get to see the messages
posted to the mailing list.

Lucky for you I typed this, you'd never be able to read my handwriting.



-- 
users mailing list
users@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe or change subscription options:
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users
Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
Have a question? Ask away: http://ask.fedoraproject.org

Re: mpg123 not included, why?

[Tim]

Allegedly, on or about 11 January 2016, Fernando Cassia sent:
> Call me old fashioned, but I prefer a static, single binary to perform
> a simple task like playing a mp3 file - you know, the Unix way, do one
> thing and do it self-cointained.

There's some logic to that, but all some illogic.  Would you have yet
another binary program to play wav files, another for oggs, another for
flac, and have to call the right one for each audio file you want to
play?  Or would you use the one player for any type of audio file, and
let it make use of the appropriate codec for the file?

The idea of having a common codec for handling, say mp3 files, has merit
in itself, along the lines you're promoting for the binary player.  If
half a dozen programs all use the same codec file, that's more people
debugging and improving a codec.

Personally, I think that there's far too many different types of media
file to have a single binary player that handles them all.  There would
be poorly supported ones that coders didn't really place much priority
on.  And I certainly wouldn't want to have to use a plethora of
different binary players for each different audio filetype.

-- 
[tim@localhost ~]$ uname -rsvp
Linux 3.9.10-100.fc17.x86_64 #1 SMP Sun Jul 14 01:31:27 UTC 2013 x86_64

Boilerplate:  All mail to my mailbox is automatically deleted, there is
no point trying to privately email me, I only get to see the messages
posted to the mailing list.

Linux servers are always being dæmonised...



-- 
users mailing list
users@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe or change subscription options:
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users
Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
Have a question? Ask away: http://ask.fedoraproject.org

Re: mpg123 not included, why?

[Philip Brown]

On 01/11/2016 05:35 PM, Tim wrote:

Allegedly, on or about 11 January 2016, Philip Brown sent:

bad past experience, could have been livna, it was a long time ago and
I never used it since. I imagine it should be a lot better now,
however seeing as I only need these few files I prefer just to
download them rather than having an extra repo system.  The updates
for these rpms are few and far between (last updates were Sept 2014
and May 2015) so it does not really add much to my workload.

Kinda hard to relate ancient experience to what might happen now, one
doesn't necessarily demand the other.

But still, there are easier and better ways to do it than force
hand-unpacked files from an archive onto a system.  Such as:

Download the few rpm files that concern you,
then use yum localinstall with those files (or dnf).

They're installed properly, then.  And if other files are needed at the
same time, yum will get them, too.  The files are in the database so
that other things are aware of their presence.  And they're easily
removed, without breaking other things.


thanks, I appreciate the alternative method you have given. I will try 
that before going the "install repo" route if my setup breaks.


It's just not a good idea to jam in files.  It's an even worse idea to
advise someone to do it.  More so if it's not given with full warning.




--
 


--
users mailing list
users@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe or change subscription options:
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users
Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
Have a question? Ask away: http://ask.fedoraproject.org

Re: mpg123 not included, why?

[Patrick O'Callaghan]

On Mon, 2016-01-11 at 17:59 +0100, Philip Brown wrote:
> > They're installed properly, then.  And if other files are needed at
> the
> > same time, yum will get them, too.  The files are in the database
> so
> > that other things are aware of their presence.  And they're easily
> > removed, without breaking other things.
> 
> thanks, I appreciate the alternative method you have given. I will
> try 
> that before going the "install repo" route if my setup breaks.

You can also have the repo file installed but disabled, but use "yum
(or dnf) --enablerepo ..." when you want to install something specific.

poc
-- 
users mailing list
users@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe or change subscription options:
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users
Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
Have a question? Ask away: http://ask.fedoraproject.org

Re: mpg123 not included, why?

[Ian Malone]

On 11 January 2016 at 16:41, Tim  wrote:
> Allegedly, on or about 11 January 2016, Fernando Cassia sent:
>> Call me old fashioned, but I prefer a static, single binary to perform
>> a simple task like playing a mp3 file - you know, the Unix way, do one
>> thing and do it self-cointained.
>
> There's some logic to that, but all some illogic.  Would you have yet
> another binary program to play wav files, another for oggs, another for
> flac, and have to call the right one for each audio file you want to
> play?  Or would you use the one player for any type of audio file, and
> let it make use of the appropriate codec for the file?
>
> The idea of having a common codec for handling, say mp3 files, has merit
> in itself, along the lines you're promoting for the binary player.  If
> half a dozen programs all use the same codec file, that's more people
> debugging and improving a codec.
>
> Personally, I think that there's far too many different types of media
> file to have a single binary player that handles them all.  There would
> be poorly supported ones that coders didn't really place much priority
> on.  And I certainly wouldn't want to have to use a plethora of
> different binary players for each different audio filetype.

This is sort of what plugin architectures try to do too (like
gstreamer). The trick is having an interface that can handle the
required data while the application is able to look for the presence
of the component it needs for a particular data type. That can be done
with plugins or binaries (see applications like grip which use
separate tools to do encoding). It does take more work, because you
need a framework that can handle that discovery (rather than just
statically link in every needed library, even handing off to the
different demuxing and decoding algorithms is harder than a tool that
works with a single format), and to fill in any gaps in the formats
that are supported through that interface. The result is applications
that use those frameworks end up more complex and have to wait for the
framework to move before they can support new things, while
lightweight tools can move more quickly, but end up becoming
non-lightweight tools in the process. I think this is why new
'minimalist' players appear every so often.

And of course every shiny new video codec starts off supported in one
particular implementation and needs to be taken up by the others (even
before you bring in patent issues).

-- 
imalone
http://ibmalone.blogspot.co.uk
-- 
users mailing list
users@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe or change subscription options:
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users
Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
Have a question? Ask away: http://ask.fedoraproject.org

Re: Missing Component in KDE System Settings

[Stephen Morris]

On 09/01/16 09:58, Rex Dieter wrote:

Stephen Morris wrote:


Can anyone tell me what has happened to the KDE System Settings addin
that allows customization of the Display Manager login interface in F23?

Do you have sddm-kcm package installed?  (if not, get it)

-- Rex

I already had the sddm-kcm package installed, but  I wasn't actually 
using sddm as the Display Manager I was using Fedora's default of gdm. 
I've now switched to sddm but the switch caused problems.
To switch to sddm I first disabled gdm through systemd, but that shut 
down my Plasma desktop and I had to power off my PC and power it back on 
again to get it back.
Now that I have switched to sddm I have found an sddm login interface in 
System Settings but it doesn't work, it doesn't display anything. As 
this is a standard part of Plasma 5 I don't understand why it doesn't 
work or alternatively why Fedora have removed it. The same also applies 
to sddm-config-editor which I believe is also a standard part of Plasma 
5 but it doesn't appear to be in the Fedora repositories.
How do we know what themes are installed for gddm as from my perspective 
the default theme is horrendous, in that if there are more than 2 users 
to display, it only show 2 at a time and focuses on the last user to login.


regards,
Steve


<>-- 
users mailing list
users@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe or change subscription options:
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users
Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
Have a question? Ask away: http://ask.fedoraproject.org