Re: No lzma sdk in fedora

On Fri, 12 Feb 2010, Milos Jakubicek wrote: > Oh, I didn't really notice how your repoquery looks like before. > Libarchive is ok, but there are others: > >> repoquery --whatrequires --alldeps lzma lzma-libs lzma-devel > --enablerepo=rawhide > rpm-build-0:4.7.1-6.fc12.x86_64 > rpm-build-0:4.8.0-9

Re: No lzma sdk in fedora

I did some testing of the dev squashfs and found it reduced the game spin size by 10%. (This was a nonfunctional spin, since the kernel wouldn't handle the lzma squashfs image.) mksquashfs uses multiple processors for both zlib and lzma compression. I made a spin using the dev squashfs using the de

Re: No lzma sdk in fedora

On Sat, Feb 13, 2010 at 13:34:13 -0600, Bruno Wolff III wrote: > > It seems Lougher added a wrapper for xz about a week ago. I haven't tried it > out yet, but I think that will likely make it significantly easier for me > to get 4.1 into rawhide. I won't do this before the alpha, but it might >

Re: No lzma sdk in fedora

On Sat, Feb 13, 2010 at 10:57:35 +0100, Kevin Kofler wrote: > Bruno Wolff III wrote: > > I'll take a quick look over the weekend. We probably want to wait until > > the branch next week anyway. I have been meaning to get back to > > squashfs-tools in any case, as this gives me a way forward. If

Re: No lzma sdk in fedora

On Sat, Feb 13, 2010 at 10:57:35 +0100, Kevin Kofler wrote: > Bruno Wolff III wrote: > > I'll take a quick look over the weekend. We probably want to wait until > > the branch next week anyway. I have been meaning to get back to > > squashfs-tools in any case, as this gives me a way forward. If

Re: No lzma sdk in fedora

On Sat, Feb 13, 2010 at 10:57:35 +0100, Kevin Kofler wrote: > Bruno Wolff III wrote: > > I'll take a quick look over the weekend. We probably want to wait until > > the branch next week anyway. I have been meaning to get back to > > squashfs-tools in any case, as this gives me a way forward. If

Re: No lzma sdk in fedora

John Reiser wrote: > The previous editions lzma442, 443, 449, 457, 458, 459, > all required *different* adaptations by upx. > So a separate Fedora source package would have been of little value, > except possibly as an indicator of the need for a -libs package. > But during that time, creating a -l

Re: No lzma sdk in fedora

Bruno Wolff III wrote: > I'll take a quick look over the weekend. We probably want to wait until > the branch next week anyway. I have been meaning to get back to > squashfs-tools in any case, as this gives me a way forward. If it looks > like I can figure it out, I plan on submitting a package for

Re: No lzma sdk in fedora

On Fri, Feb 12, 2010 at 07:39:36PM -0800, John Reiser wrote: > On 02/12/2010 04:08 PM, Toshio Kuratomi wrote: > > On Fri, Feb 12, 2010 at 03:04:06PM -0800, John Reiser wrote: > >> The Fedora upx package put its copy of lzma465.tar.bz2 as another file in > >> the SOURCES for Fedora upx, in same dire

Re: No lzma sdk in fedora

On 02/12/2010 04:08 PM, Toshio Kuratomi wrote: > On Fri, Feb 12, 2010 at 03:04:06PM -0800, John Reiser wrote: >> The Fedora upx package put its copy of lzma465.tar.bz2 as another file in >> the SOURCES for Fedora upx, in same directory as upx-3.04.tar.bz2. >> > This is a bundled library and needs t

Re: No lzma sdk in fedora

On Fri, Feb 12, 2010 at 03:04:06PM -0800, John Reiser wrote: > > > Where is an appropriate location to put the source? > > The Fedora upx package put its copy of lzma465.tar.bz2 as another file in > the SOURCES for Fedora upx, in same directory as upx-3.04.tar.bz2. > This is a bundled library an

Re: No lzma sdk in fedora

On 02/12/2010 03:11 PM, Bruno Wolff III wrote: > What I was really asking is if there should > be a source package so that upx could be built without having a second > copy of the SDK in another srpm? The previous editions lzma442, 443, 449, 457, 458, 459, all required *different* adaptations by

Re: No lzma sdk in fedora

On Fri, Feb 12, 2010 at 15:04:06 -0800, John Reiser wrote: > > Going forward, there should be a -libs package (and probably a -devel package) > and its use should be encouraged (instead of lzma source), particularly for > new uses. Probably it is too difficult to force _all_ existing uses of l

Re: No lzma sdk in fedora

On 02/12/2010 02:09 PM, Bruno Wolff III wrote: > On Fri, Feb 12, 2010 at 13:34:48 -0800, >John Reiser wrote: >> The package that needs the src is the upx package. The coupling >> is very strong, therefore a physical copy of the entire specific >> version of lzma source was put into the source

Re: No lzma sdk in fedora

On Fri, Feb 12, 2010 at 13:34:48 -0800, John Reiser wrote: > > Another related note is that someone wanted a src package for it because > > they had something that would only build with access to the source. I am > > not planning on providing that, but wanted people to be aware we had a > > req

Re: No lzma sdk in fedora

> Another related note is that someone wanted a src package for it because > they had something that would only build with access to the source. I am > not planning on providing that, but wanted people to be aware we had a request > for it. The package that needs the src is the upx package. The c

Re: No lzma sdk in fedora

On Fri, Feb 12, 2010 at 19:25:14 +0100, Milos Jakubicek wrote: > On 12.2.2010 19:17, Chen Lei wrote: > >lzma itself already replaced by xz-lzma-compat several months ago. > >xz-lzma-compat provides lzma=5. > > Am I dumb, oh yes of course, this is since the xz review, sorry for > confusion! > >

Re: No lzma sdk in fedora

On 12.2.2010 19:17, Chen Lei wrote: lzma itself already replaced by xz-lzma-compat several months ago. xz-lzma-compat provides lzma=5. Am I dumb, oh yes of course, this is since the xz review, sorry for confusion! Well then we are safe to go. Milos -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedorap

Re: No lzma sdk in fedora

lzma itself already replaced by xz-lzma-compat several months ago. xz-lzma-compat provides lzma=5. 在2010-02-13?02:10:23，"Milos?Jakubicek"??写道： >Oh,?I?didn't?really?notice?how?your?repoquery?looks?like?before. >Libarchive?is?ok,?but?there?are?others: > >?>repoquery?--whatrequires?--alldeps?lz

Re: No lzma sdk in fedora

Oh, I didn't really notice how your repoquery looks like before. Libarchive is ok, but there are others: >repoquery --whatrequires --alldeps lzma lzma-libs lzma-devel --enablerepo=rawhide rpm-build-0:4.7.1-6.fc12.x86_64 rpm-build-0:4.8.0-9.fc13.x86_64 man-0:1.6f-25.fc12.x86_64 autoarchive-0:0.1

Re: No lzma sdk in fedora

In fact libarchive doesn't require lzma-libs any more in F12 and F13. For F11: repoquery --whatrequires libarchive.so.2 PackageKit-glib-0:0.4.9-1.fc11.i586 libarchive-0:2.6.2-1.fc11.i586 kdeutils-6:4.2.2-4.fc11.i586 PackageKit-glib-0:0.4.6-8.fc11.i586 libarchive-devel-0:2.6.2-1.fc11.i586 Updating

Re: No lzma sdk in fedora

On Fri, Feb 12, 2010 at 18:02:56 +0100, Milos Jakubicek wrote: > Hi Chen, > > On 12.2.2010 12:50, Chen Lei wrote: > > I realized from "http://tukaani.org/xz/"; the core of the xz utils > > compression code is based on LZMA SDK , but > > it has been modified quite a l

Re: No lzma sdk in fedora

Hi Chen, On 12.2.2010 12:50, Chen Lei wrote: > I realized from "http://tukaani.org/xz/"; the core of the xz utils > compression code is based on LZMA SDK , but > it has been modified quite a lot to be suitable for XZ Utils. > So I think we should ship lzma sdk for fedor

Re: No lzma sdk in fedora

On Fri, Feb 12, 2010 at 19:50:52 +0800, Chen Lei wrote: > I realized from "http://tukaani.org/xz/"; the core of the xz utils > compression code is based on LZMA SDK, but it has been modified quite a lot > to be suitable for XZ Utils. > So I think we should ship lzma sdk for fedora in paralle

Re: No lzma sdk in fedora?

Bruno Wolff III wrote: > We have an out of date version that isn't getting updated upstream and > we have a replacement library that uses a different API but which can > probably do what you want with some wrappers. > > I have an interest in this as well as the development version of squashfs > to

Re: No lzma sdk in fedora

I realized from "http://tukaani.org/xz/"; the core of the xz utils compression code is based on LZMA SDK, but it has been modified quite a lot to be suitable for XZ Utils. So I think we should ship lzma sdk for fedora in parallel with xz utils and p7zip. Since xz utils are the successor to lzm

Re: No lzma sdk in fedora?

On Thu, Feb 11, 2010 at 10:39 PM, Chen Lei wrote: > Hi all, > I want to package a sofware using a bundled lzma sdk which fedora doesn't > have(http://7-zip.org/sdk.html). > Since  I realized no linux distribution containing lzma sdk yet, is using a > bundled library permitted under this condition,?

Re: No lzma sdk in fedora?

On Fri, Feb 12, 2010 at 11:39:02 +0800, Chen Lei wrote: > Hi all, > I want to package a sofware using a bundled lzma sdk which fedora doesn't > have(http://7-zip.org/sdk.html). > Since I realized no linux distribution containing lzma sdk yet, is using a > bundled library permitted under this

Re: No lzma sdk in fedora?

> I want to package a sofware using a bundled lzma sdk which fedora > doesn't have(http://7-zip.org/sdk.html). Fedora 12 has package lzma-libs which is generated by lzma-4.32.7-3.fc12.src.rpm. Perhaps you should confer with the maintainer of the Fedora lzma package if you desire a later lzma vers

Re: No lzma sdk in fedora?

On 02/12/2010 04:39 AM, Chen Lei wrote: > Hi all, > I want to package a sofware using a bundled lzma sdk which fedora doesn't > have(http://7-zip.org/sdk.html). > Since I realized no linux distribution containing lzma sdk yet, is using a > bundled library permitted under this condition,? This s

No lzma sdk in fedora?

Hi all, I want to package a sofware using a bundled lzma sdk which fedora doesn't have(http://7-zip.org/sdk.html). Since I realized no linux distribution containing lzma sdk yet, is using a bundled library permitted under this condition,? Regards, Chen Lei-- devel mailing list devel@list