On Wed, 2016-01-20 at 11:12 -0800, Adam Williamson wrote:
> On Wed, 2016-01-20 at 10:11 +, Russel Winder wrote:
> > On Wed, 2016-01-20 at 00:35 +, Peter Robinson wrote:
> > […]
> > > There's nothing stopping you packaging it up :-)
> > […]
> >
> > Clearly true, per se. I have though no ide
On Wed, 2016-01-20 at 10:11 +, Russel Winder wrote:
> On Wed, 2016-01-20 at 00:35 +, Peter Robinson wrote:
> […]
> > There's nothing stopping you packaging it up :-)
> […]
>
> Clearly true, per se. I have though no idea how to create packages,
> especially for submission to the Fedora repo
On Wed, 2016-01-20 at 00:35 +, Peter Robinson wrote:
[…]
> There's nothing stopping you packaging it up :-)
[…]
Clearly true, per se. I have though no idea how to create packages,
especially for submission to the Fedora repository.
Also I am going to fall into the "chicken and egg" pit myself
>> I dount it's intentional, I suspect it's more than no one has needed
>> gstreamermm 1.0 and hence not packaged it up.
>
> Pity though. C is not a good language for writing applications. Sadly
> there is chicken and egg situation here: only C API is available so
> people do not use C++ so the pac
On Tue, 2016-01-19 at 08:08 +, Peter Robinson wrote:
[…]
>
> I dount it's intentional, I suspect it's more than no one has needed
> gstreamermm 1.0 and hence not packaged it up.
Pity though. C is not a good language for writing applications. Sadly
there is chicken and egg situation here: only
> Debian Sid and Fedora Rawhide both have gstreamer-0.10 and gstreamer-
> 1.0 libraries, seemingly the full set. However Sid only has Gstreamermm
> 1.0 and Rawhide only has Gstreamermm 0.10. Is this intentional? It does
> make things somewhat awkward creating Gstreamer application with C++.
I doun
