is this announce from Fluendo referenced here:
already being discussed at Fedora Legal?
It would be really nice to finally have mp3 support OUTB in Fedora.
Cheers and Happy Christmas
I've wondered about this for years. I'v already emailed
ftp+fedora(a)redhat.com about this idea.
The mirrors list (http://fedora.redhat.com/Download/mirrors.html) could
be livened up with some sortable stat columns (by country) showing:
1. Link Up/Down
3. Mirrors the FC1,2,3,4,5... Development,etc. directories.
4. The Latest Dev Build Date/Has Lastest Updates
5. Days out of date for each of the sections.
6. Maybe even a torrent seed.
People come and go and they typically *want* to use a mirror if they
could just get a good recomendation of one. I'm just saying that the
mirror pages could be made much more useful.
I was wondering what folks thought about including a few yum plugins
out-of-the-box on FC5. I've got a MythTV setup a home running FC4, but
I add ATRPMS and FreshRPMs repos to be able to easily install MythTV and
satisfy its requirements. I believe other users of Fedora are in the
same boat; we have to use third-party repos but we don't want them ever
overriding Fedora RPMs.
I've manually installed the "protectbase" and "fastestmirror" plugins
from the yum-utils tarball (they are not included in the yum-utils RPM
or subpackages yet).
I would think installing protectbase by default on FC5 and protecting
all Fedora official repos would be excellent. I added protect=1 to
fedora.repo, fedora-updates.repo and fedora-extras.repo after making
sure the plugin was enabled and yum.conf had "plugins=1". This allows
me to run the following command without AtRPMS changing any RPMs that
are included in [base], [updates] or [extras]:
yum --enablerepo=atrpms --enablerepo=freshrpms update
Normally, I have atrpms and freshrpms disabled; base, updates and extras
are enabled. Without protectbase installed, atrpms wants to provide
updates to xorg-X11 and various other packages which I don't want.
However, it provides a bunch of MythTV updates I do want (about 30 RPMs
or so). Since I don't want to iterate manually through all the MythTV
updates, I find protectbase a good compromise.
I would think it would be in the best interest of the Fedora team to
install protectbase by default, enable it and protect Fedora repos. If
power users want to disable it, it's very easy.
Am I off-base in this request? :)
Brian Long | | |
IT Data Center Systems | .|||. .|||.
Cisco Linux Developer | ..:|||||||:...:|||||||:..
Phone: (919) 392-7363 | C i s c o S y s t e m s
I know this topic has been mentioned over and over, and everyone is
irritated by it. But why not meet the Mono project half-way? Why can't the
hal-sharp and the dbus-sharp, and gtk-sharp add-ons be included in the
At the moment Fedora seems to want absolutely nothing to do with Mono. Why
not try to go a little farther and include mono interfaces to dbus, hal,
gnome, etc. This means that if someone does install Mono then all the
system libraries are ready to do some C# programming. And if a user doesn't
install Mono, then the interfaces will lie there useless.
Look at it this way, Fedora should try to do the smallest amount possible to
embrace Mono. Make it easier on the repositories that do include Mono, so
that if I want to install Beagle or F-Spot, I can leave the system libraries
on Fedora alone.
There are some killer-apps built using Mono. Fedora should get cheeky and
see what they can get away.
I recently tried building packages of kde-3.5.0 on FC3, during compiling ran
into error of non existent file for
/lib/libattr.la and /lib/libacl.la
to correct libattr.la I made a symlink in /lib. I didn't really like this
method but seems to have worked
I noticed for libacl-devel libacl.la has been removed by the spec file. If
I removed the rm line would this cause any issues
i've seen patches circulating for other distr. that add hook and syml to
/lib for attr.
>From the dist that I looked into /usr/lib seems to be the norm.
correct me if I'm wrong but should this be addressed in KDE itself.
Anyone care to shed some light on this would be greatly appreciated
Can someone tell me the status of, or point me to documentation on
the docbook xml to pdf toolchain on Fedora?
I gather from a 2004 thread in fedora-docs-list that the toolchain was
moving to fop,
but I don't see any fop yet in core or extras.
If you try to install fop separately it requires Jimi or JAI packages
and Sun's installer scripts no longer work on Fedora because somebody broke
"tail +n". Probably fixable, but what is the right direction for me to
I tried db2pdf but it seems to expect sgml, rather than xml?
Is there any chance of seeing the Bluecurve icon set in the new OOo 2.0
in upcoming FC5? I don't like the default icon set very much, and the
Bluecurve icon set on OOo 1.1.x branch looked great. It would be very
nice to follow the tradition since RHEL5 will be based on FC5, AFAIK ;)