CentOS - May 2005 - mplayer repository for CentOS

Hi,

Is there a CentOS yum repository for mplayer&dependencies?

Thanks,
Adrian

Adrian Coman wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> Is there a CentOS yum repository for mplayer&dependencies?
<http://dag.wieers.com/home-made/apt/>

Ralph
-- 
Ralph Angenendt......ra at br-online.de | .."Text processing has made it
possible
Bayerischer Rundfunk...HA-Multimedia | ....to right-justify any idea, even one
Rundfunkplatz 1........80300 M?nchen | .which cannot be justified on any other
Tl:089.5900.16023..Fx:089.5900.16240 | ..........grounds." -- J. Finnegan,
USC
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: not available
URL:
<http://lists.centos.org/pipermail/centos/attachments/20050520/559a9f64/attachment-0004.sig>

From: Adrian Coman <adi.coman at gmail.com>
> Is there a CentOS yum repository for mplayer&dependencies?
From: Ralph Angenendt <ra+centos at br-online.de>
> http://dag.wieers.com/home-made/apt/>
I'm kinda curious.

I'm typically tapping the Livna.ORG archives for RHEL3Ux/CentOS3.x
(Fedora Core 1 repository) and RHEL4Ux/CentOS4.x (Fedora Core 3
repository) for MPlayer and a number of other programs that Livna.ORG
provides.

Nothing against DAG, but I typically like to use Fedora Extras/Livna.ORG
first, unless I can't find something or have an issue.  Does anyone else
do this as well, or is DAG the preferred option among most?


--
Bryan J. Smith   mailto:b.j.smith at ieee.org

From: William Warren <hescominsoon at
emmanuelcomputerconsulting.com>
> considering the FUD fedora talks about mixing repositories.
It's not FUD, it's an issue with Debian as well.
>From what I've seen, for the most part, as long as you pick one or the
other repository, you're okay.  E.g., either DAG or FE+Lorg.

One of the reasons for the greater Fedora Project (outside of the Fedora
Core name change and trademark issues) was the continued sprawling
of repositories.  Fedora Extras was supposed to address this, but even
I'll admit that it seemed a little too much "you're on your
own" in the
first 18 months of its existance.  I.e., the former U of Hawaii Fedora
Project didn't do much to help anyone but their own, existing project
set, and the new Livna.ORG repository fork (for legal reasons).

But as of this year, there is now a formal submittal process.  And being a
software engineer myself with a lot of experience in formal lifecycle
and testing, I kinda prefer the quality I see out of Red Hat's regression
and other testing.  Maybe it's because I had horrors with FreshRPMS before
I switched to Fedora.US (before Red Hat's involvement), and instantly
saw many issues go away.

But FE/Lorg seems to have everything I want.  Only a couple times have
I tapped DAG, and then I only did it temporarily in my APT/YUM files to
avoid "repository mixing" issues anytime I did an upgrade later.

BTW, just so everyone know, this e-mail was _not_ to argue the merits
of "which repository is better / sucks."  I was just interested in
finding
out if anyone is like me, tapping FE/Lorg, or if most everyone is just using
DAG.  That's all.  I might try a few systems under test and see how it
all goes.



--
Bryan J. Smith   mailto:b.j.smith at ieee.org

From: Paul Heinlein <heinlein at madboa.com>
> FWIW, under RH/FC I typically used Fedora Extras and Livna, grabbing DAG 
> packages only when I was in a real hurry. I haven't yet tried to 
> integrate either repo into CentOS 4.
I've pretty much just stuck with FE+Lorg for RHEL3Ux/CentOS3.x (EL3) and
RHEL4Ux/CentOS4.x (EL4) out of "default," because like yourself,
I'm already
using them with Fedora Core (I use FC1 for EL3, FC3 for EL4).

It's just one of those things where I'm already doing configuration
management
of my FC systems and integrating in packages from FE (although not MPlayer or
most of Lorg, for legal reasons in a corporate environment), so I'm just
adopting
the same for my EL systems as well.  So at home, I do the same (only with
more packages from Lorg too).

But also like yourself, I have used DAG from time-to-time.


--
Bryan J. Smith   mailto:b.j.smith at ieee.org

From: Johnny Hughes <mailing-lists at
hughesjr.com>
> I don't know if I would call it FUD ... BUT, if repos are going to work
> together, they have to use consistent names for packages, so that
> versioning will work properly.
Agreed.  Red Hat really wants to see this with the greater Fedora Project,
but I there is a long way to go and a lot of concessions still to be made.
I don't blame anyone for the lack of consolidation.
> Just for the record, using the Fedora Core library on CentOS-4 can be
> problematic (and even DAGs repo, for that matter) ... in that both can
> overwrite base CentOS libraries.
I find as long as I align the versions correctly, and _only_ tap Fedora
Extras and Livna.ORG (and _not_ Fedora Core), I haven't had an issue.
> I would highly recommend that you use a includepkg= in your yum
> configuration for any external repo (even things like centosplus).
I am aware of such details.  In many cases, I'm maintaining my own,
internal repositories anyway for multiple systems.
> Karanbir Singh is working on a rebuild of FC Extras that uses
> functionality already in CentOS-4 and doesn't upgrade any packages
> (unless required) that are part of the base centos.  Since FC is not
> CentOS, and there are differences in some libraries, I would
> recommend Karanbir's repo over FC Extras (for CentOS-4).  I don't
> have the address of this site handy right now...I'm sure someone does.
One thing I'm tiring of is the inconsistency between FC/RHL and RHEL.
It's one thing that is looking better about SL and NLx every day.
I'm waiting to see what Novell does with SL 10.x and NLx 10.
> Just be careful when using any external repo, as it can replace things you
> don't want.
Exactly.



--
Bryan J. Smith   mailto:b.j.smith at ieee.org

That Red Hat exited the desktop market.

-----Original Message-----
From:  Collins Richey 
Date:  05-5-21 17:34
To:  CentOS mailing list 
Subj:  Re: [CentOS] mplayer repository for CentOS

On 5/21/05, Bryan J. Smith <b.j.smith at ieee.org> wrote:

[ snips ]
> ...Red Hat marketing to try to repair a lot of the damage that eWeek's 
> mis-quotes of Michael Tiemann did back in 2003.
> 
An what might these misquotes and this damage be? I've done a little
googling with those keywords and found nothing of interest. I haven't
a clue what you're talking about.

-- 
 Collins
       Head teachers of the world unite: you have nothing to lose but 
       the Start button.
_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
CentOS at centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

I think DAG made a good point that if the SPEC files are only written for the
latest release of a distro, it's not a RPM, APT/YUM or repository issue.
Being that he has far more experience than I in maintaining the same package for
multiple versions, I guess I've been a bit ignorant of that viewpoint.

-----Original Message-----
From:  Les Mikesell 
Date:  05-5-21 20:35
To:  CentOS mailing list 
Subj:  Re: [CentOS] Re: mplayer repository for CentOS

On Sat, 2005-05-21 at 00:58, Dag Wieers wrote:
> Bryan, that's more a apt/yum issue than it is a repository issue. If
you
> think repository maintainers should divide their repository in all 
> possible permutations of what people might want (and what 
> cross-requirements exist between these repositories), you have not 
> maintained a big repository.
Do any of the yum-like tools have the ability to work at the src rpm
level in addition to the binary ones? That is, could you maintain a
a single repository of extra packages that work with a range of
distributions/versions/libraries and have a tool automatically build
them on the requesting system if a matching binary rpm didn't already
exist?

-- 
  Les Mikesell
    lesmikesell at gmail.com


_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
CentOS at centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos