You are not logged in.

#51 2003-01-17 19:17:20

setakht
Member
Registered: 2002-12-23
Posts: 12

Re: Packages Wish-Slip

Just my two cents that anyone who thinks doing a *quality* rip in transcode on the command line is easy is either misinformed or has waaaay too much time on their hands. My average rip (take me ripping my farscape dvd) consists of no less than 4 lines of transcode commands. They add up once you start doing real things with the program, like deinterlacing, cropping etc. Plus, dvdrip, because it uses imagmagick enables you to crop a frame grabbed from the image to get the correct resize, makes it far easier than what you would have to do in transcode, which is fire up xine/mplayer, then manually calculate the cropping/resizing. In essence dvdrip is the only thing that even remotely comes close to the quality of the tools I have available in windows.

The fact of the matter about gnome 1.4 is that people still update and build apps on it, so it's needed like any other library to insure that everything that runs on most any other distro can run on AL.

matt

Offline

#52 2003-01-17 21:07:13

sarah31
Member
From: Middle of Canada
Registered: 2002-08-20
Posts: 2,975
Website

Re: Packages Wish-Slip

i do quality rips all the time with transcode actually. mind you i do not alter the video much from the original. It takes me a mater of a minute to enter the line or less and the result is a very high quilty divx5 file. i am not doubting the ease or the quailty of dvd::rip or drip.

what we are talking about here though is one or two developers who among maintaining well over a hundred packages each and trying to make sure they work being asked to take on another twenty or so libraries for what is essentially five applications that the majority of the users will not likely use.

like i say it is all practicality there is a wealth of applications out there that i would love to package up but my resposibilities here and my daytime job don't allow for much time as a matter of fact i have 8 package upgrades here that have been sitting here for three days because i have not been rested enough to upload them to the trees and i likely will not get a chance to until tomorrowe night at the earliest.

so why not have more developers you say? well right now there are enough. three or more people on the unoffcial tree would be overkill.

the actual fact is of all the applications requested only five would require these libraries if it was more i would consider it. to date though it remains five. Gaelon, dvd::rip, drip, eroaster, and gtkperl.

if this sounds unreasonable to you i am sorry but the goal here is to remain lightweight and maintain set goals of haviing a clean ordered file hierarchy. i think that sometimes it is unreasonable to put the onus on the distro developers to fill the trees with old fashioned software instead of requesting the application deveolper to move on to the new era software. the fact is gnome2 is now the focus of gnome.org and will be supplanting 1.4 on every distro so it is high time that the software developers be pressured to start developing for the new DE.


AKA uknowme

I am not your friend

Offline

#53 2003-01-18 00:19:19

BluPhoenyx
Member
Registered: 2002-12-23
Posts: 239

Re: Packages Wish-Slip

As a user, I agree with sarah31. AL should remain lightweight, at least in the primary distribution. There are the obvious advantages to this such as easier distribution and installation as well as reduced work load for the developers. Can you imagine the few AL developers having to keep up with a multi CD based distro?[1] Ouch!

You also have to give the developers credit for planning ahead by supporting an unofficial package tree. At least this way users can, and should, create, maintain and (possibly [2]) distribute their own packages for AL. This is a very useful feature, especially for people like me who are used to particular programs.

Ultimately, you can't satisfy everyone. An example of this is my own preference for a gui email/news program, SylpheedClaws. The AL unofficial tree includes the standard Sylpheed but the 'Claws version offers better (IMHO) functionality. One major advantage is the spelling checker which allows for real time spelling error trapping. Since my typing is lousy, that is a must have.

As for Gnome 1.4, well I don't know anymore. The Gnome2 terminal serves as a replacement for the MGT [3]. I don't do dvd ripping or playing on the PC so that aspect doesn't matter much. Likewise, the Galeon browser is being developed for Gnome2. It's just a little bit difficult for the average user to build.

[1] No disrespect intended to these excellent folks!
[2] In house packages are equally possible.
[3] MultiGnome-terminal, a tabbed terminal.


BluPhoenyx

Offline

#54 2003-01-18 05:03:09

setakht
Member
Registered: 2002-12-23
Posts: 12

Re: Packages Wish-Slip

Blaasvis wrote:

i am busy on building packages for gnome1.4, because i need sodpodi for my work.......
when i am done i will submit them...

it will be possible to run gnome 2 and 1.4 next to each other, because i gave 1.4 his own dir....
within a day or 3 i hope i got everything working  8)

so i did upload everything to the icoming folder... please try them and let me know how you think about them  wink

Well I just tried your gnome-1.4 pkgs and they work great...now all there is is gtk-perl, so I'm gonna work with that a bit.

thanks,
matt

Offline

#55 2003-01-18 07:21:07

Blaasvis
Member
Registered: 2003-01-17
Posts: 467

Re: Packages Wish-Slip

i am happy you like them....  my next project will be open-office.....
anyone that find bugs in my packages please submit them to me....


Freedom is what i love

Offline

#56 2003-01-18 14:26:22

sarah31
Member
From: Middle of Canada
Registered: 2002-08-20
Posts: 2,975
Website

Re: Packages Wish-Slip

be sure to keep your open office none-interactive. right now one can get the binary to easily be made into a package but another problem arises from installing the binary. you are force to have a second directory in /home/foo which does not conform to the manner in which apeiro wants an arch package to be. so the only alternative is attempting to build it from source or tricking the binary to install to /opt/OpenOffice..... and being executable from their by both root and user. As of yet i have not pulled either off. If you can thats great but no other submission to incoming will be allowed if it does not follow the layout i mentioned.

EDIT: please include a filelist with your packges too. both jk and i begin our checks with packages by testing the PKGBUILD and comparing ressulting file lists. from that we can make sure the integrity of the build as there are many source files out there that will ignore the standard build script and install components directly onto your system. All perl makefiles do this for example. other makefiles/install scripts will create new directories directly on your system that are needed in the package which again will require modifications of the PKGBUILD or the Makefiles them selves.

All submissions to incoming should include the PKGBUILD, filelist, and package contained within a directory bearing the packages name which should be then gzipped up. I requested you gnome packages to be a separate directory for the sake of being able to quickly identify them from the rest of the submissions in incoming so if you could follow the suggested protocol mentioned above for submitting for all other packages i and jk would be most greatful.

thanks for taking time to make packages for arch.


AKA uknowme

I am not your friend

Offline

#57 2003-01-18 15:14:10

sarah31
Member
From: Middle of Canada
Registered: 2002-08-20
Posts: 2,975
Website

Re: Packages Wish-Slip

BluPhoenyx:

i will makeup a sylpheedclaws package this weekend. test it and hopefully have it up in the unofficial trees for you soon enough. it is on my list but unfortunately i have not had the time to work on it.

as for the gnome packages.... i need to talk with the other unofficial developer to see if we will upload the packages to the unofficial tree or not. despite the excelent apps it will allow use of i am still leary about it because they are old libraries that are quickly becoming dated. as mentioned elsewhere on this forum by arch's gnome developer gnome 1.4 is dated and depreciated and thus whatever uses those libraries should be moving on to support the new gnome. further with having the gnome 1.4 libraries in the unofficial trees makes me worried that mre and more components of gnome 1.4 will be requested/made and even more old software will be uploaded and the  inevitable horror of forcing old apps to use newer compiler, glibc, etc will consume both jk and myselfs time. not that the old software in bad but i do enjoy some time to browse freshmeat for new and interesting software to include in unofficial. trust me i am not being lazy myself and jk spend very long hours working to make arch even better if anyone was here a month ago would know that unofficial has indeed benefitted from our work.


AKA uknowme

I am not your friend

Offline

#58 2003-01-19 02:22:54

BluPhoenyx
Member
Registered: 2002-12-23
Posts: 239

Re: Packages Wish-Slip

sarah31
Thanks for working on the sylpheedclaws but don't hurry on my account. I expect there may be a few problems with making a package out of it though. For one, the spelling system it uses is aspell 0.50 or higher. Also, some options require compile time switches be enabled, such as gpgme, openssl and even aspell.


BluPhoenyx

Offline

#59 2003-01-19 05:05:46

sarah31
Member
From: Middle of Canada
Registered: 2002-08-20
Posts: 2,975
Website

Re: Packages Wish-Slip

probably and ealier version of libxml i would assume but i don't know for sure.


AKA uknowme

I am not your friend

Offline

#60 2003-01-19 06:39:47

sarah31
Member
From: Middle of Canada
Registered: 2002-08-20
Posts: 2,975
Website

Re: Packages Wish-Slip

well you could try compiling an libxml1 package you can get it here


AKA uknowme

I am not your friend

Offline

#61 2003-01-19 10:03:18

Blaasvis
Member
Registered: 2003-01-17
Posts: 467

Re: Packages Wish-Slip

sarah31 wrote:

be sure to keep your open office none-interactive. right now one can get the binary to easily be made into a package but another problem arises from installing the binary. you are force to have a second directory in /home/foo which does not conform to the manner in which apeiro wants an arch package to be. so the only alternative is attempting to build it from source or tricking the binary to install to /opt/OpenOffice..... and being executable from their by both root and user. As of yet i have not pulled either off. If you can thats great but no other submission to incoming will be allowed if it does not follow the layout i mentioned.

EDIT: please include a filelist with your packges too. both jk and i begin our checks with packages by testing the PKGBUILD and comparing ressulting file lists. from that we can make sure the integrity of the build as there are many source files out there that will ignore the standard build script and install components directly onto your system. All perl makefiles do this for example. other makefiles/install scripts will create new directories directly on your system that are needed in the package which again will require modifications of the PKGBUILD or the Makefiles them selves.

All submissions to incoming should include the PKGBUILD, filelist, and package contained within a directory bearing the packages name which should be then gzipped up. I requested you gnome packages to be a separate directory for the sake of being able to quickly identify them from the rest of the submissions in incoming so if you could follow the suggested protocol mentioned above for submitting for all other packages i and jk would be most greatful.

thanks for taking time to make packages for arch.

i have looked into openoffice it will be a pain in the ass too compile them from source.... the binary almost anyone can package, the problem with ~/OpenOffice.org1.0 could be solved by editing the /opt/openoffice.org1.0 and change it where all the user config files will be set......

i will repackage gnome1.4 libs becausen i read people need to edit the /etc/ld.so.conf and /etc/profile too set the PATH and LIB_PATH..... then i will repack today however i don't have a lot of free time... tomorrow morning i will continue creating packages.....


Freedom is what i love

Offline

#62 2003-01-19 13:04:20

hab1t
Member
From: here
Registered: 2002-12-31
Posts: 23
Website

Re: Packages Wish-Slip

can't wait to try gnome 1.4 packages!
have been waiting anxiously to be able to compile Grip cd ripper and several other little progs

i would say that gnome 1.4 is actually more useful to me, right now, than gnome 2.0, after all the only real gtk2 app i am running is pan, and there is a perfectly decent pan for gnome 1.4

someone said it was only good for one or two programs but i would have to say i have seen at least like 10 named just in this forum and i can think of a few others i've tried to compile over the last week or so that left me sad

Offline

#63 2003-01-19 16:42:00

sarah31
Member
From: Middle of Canada
Registered: 2002-08-20
Posts: 2,975
Website

Re: Packages Wish-Slip

my word grip!? what a horribly unstable app. ripperx far exceeds the capacity of grip i found. honestly though once i tried rip there was not turning back neither grip nor ripper x compare to rip imho. andf it does not rely need x to boot which definitely make it far more useful.

well if you judge that gtk is a gnome library (gimp tool kit = gnome?) i use both equally as i have everything install that depend on both gtk and gtk2 except pan.

as for gnome 1.4 reliant packages in this thread (named anyway) gnumeric, grip, dvd::rip, drip, sodipodi, gtk-perl, and evolution.  gtk-perl is a dead project it would seem as no work has been done on it since 2001 so basing any applications on is a very rediculous thing pretty soon anything that depends on gtk-perl will be the only reason that people will need gnome 1.4.

besides anyone who wants gnome 1.4 on their system is welcome to put it on but there is absolutely no plans to put gnome 1.4 in the official arch tree. there *may* be a chance for a properly built set of libraries to appear in unofficial but like i say that is very much up to the other unofficial developer.


AKA uknowme

I am not your friend

Offline

#64 2003-02-18 01:13:30

jlvsimoes
Member
From: portugal
Registered: 2002-12-23
Posts: 392
Website

Re: Packages Wish-Slip

santa claus please give me mozilla 1.3
and santa give me imwheel
ho and can i have in /etc porttime ; suauth
i promisse to be a good boy an i shall let milk and cookies for you
bye santa
thaks sara for o0


-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
Version: 3.1
GU/ d- s: a- C L U P+ L+++ E--- W+
N 0+ K- W-- !O !M V-- PS+ PE- V++ PGP T 5 Z+ R* TV+ B+
DI-- D- G-- e-- h! r++ z+ z*
------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------

Offline

#65 2003-02-18 03:38:18

BluPhoenyx
Member
Registered: 2002-12-23
Posts: 239

Re: Packages Wish-Slip

Mozilla should be here soon, testing the build now. I can give you the (tested only by me so far) PKGBUILD and install stuff if you want to build it yourself. The source is huge and the pkg with gtk2 and xft support is almost 19 mb. My dinky little 56k ISP might take some time to upload this.

Why do you need imwheel? Except for some text based apps, the system has support for imwheel built in. Just use the standard settings.

Option  "Protocol"  "IMPS/2"  #for most mice ps and usb hid
Option  "ZAxisMapping"  "4 5"

As usual, YMMV.


BluPhoenyx

Offline

#66 2003-02-18 10:17:29

jlvsimoes
Member
From: portugal
Registered: 2002-12-23
Posts: 392
Website

Re: Packages Wish-Slip

shure got a dsl line i can teste your mozila
and for the mouse i need to " chanse the buttons " got mine like this

identifier  "Mouse1"
    Driver      "mouse"
    Option "Protocol"    "ExplorerPS/2"
    Option "Device"      "/dev/psaux"
    Option "Buttons" "7"
    Option "ZAxisMapping" " 6 7"
send me the pakage i going to upgrade my profile for you to contact me on line


-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
Version: 3.1
GU/ d- s: a- C L U P+ L+++ E--- W+
N 0+ K- W-- !O !M V-- PS+ PE- V++ PGP T 5 Z+ R* TV+ B+
DI-- D- G-- e-- h! r++ z+ z*
------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------

Offline

#67 2003-02-18 18:37:05

BluPhoenyx
Member
Registered: 2002-12-23
Posts: 239

Re: Packages Wish-Slip

Did some final cleanup and more testing on the whole pkg build setup. It isn't anything like the 1.2 version which tries to build the options file which ./configure can include into the mozilla configuration. I simply pass options via CLI  just as I would on other Linux systems.

The run method is also a little different. I don't use the 'mozilla_5_home' (or whatever) in the config. Instead, I use a /etc/profile.d/mozilla.sh file which sets a few variables and adds the mozilla bin directory to the end of the path.

The pkg file with included build will be in incoming soon. I will also put a small archive with the PKGBUILD and install files.

The pkg was built with the 'current' version of Arch Linux as it needs a newer version of Pango (>1.1.0) and installing only the new Pango on an old system will make it unstable.


BluPhoenyx

Offline

#68 2003-02-28 05:54:31

sarah31
Member
From: Middle of Canada
Registered: 2002-08-20
Posts: 2,975
Website

Re: Packages Wish-Slip

i apologize to setakht he had written a big long post which i screwed up because i was not paying attention to what buttons i was pressing.

setakht, while i was not pleased with your post i did not mean to screw it up and eventually erase it. nor was it ever my intention to not upload gnome one libraries. i never did because i did not know i was allowed to because i knew they were not going to exist in the official tree.

they do not exist in unofficial yet either because i have not had any time to work on upload incoming packages. i am far too busy just maintaining what is there in unofficial right now. i have not had not had any time to work on the i586 port or my own packages in over a month either.

and for the record no one at arch ever said you were not allowed to install what ever you want on your system. especially when you have all the tools to easily make your own packages. of course you will need to make more supporting packages and work at getting them configured right so that gtk-perl will see them (ie more than just the gnome libraries are needed).

further, my distaste for applications that use non developed software is because the old software increases your security risks. imagine how angry someone would be if loading the newest dvd::rip, for example, created a security hole which someone walks through and exploits your computer. as for the packages that you had mentioned only gtk1 is not developed any more curses, and bash are still developed they are just not developed as quickly because they are very stable and secure as it stands.

at some point dvd::rip will have to step into the present and start developing their application to the newer actively developed gtk-perl2. it is not so much because gtk-perl 1 is bad but it will continue to present more and more security risks and it just shows the user that dvd::rip developers are "lazy" and do not care for their users security. in the end their short comings get blamed on us not on them and that is not fair to us.

and to be fair to dvd::rip they are not the only developers out there that have based their applications on older less secure dependencies.


AKA uknowme

I am not your friend

Offline

#69 2003-03-01 11:33:39

xirus
Member
Registered: 2002-12-01
Posts: 113

Re: Packages Wish-Slip

programs I would like to see:

-gnomeICU (I don't like any of the other icq clients)
-amsn (msn... note: I don't like using this, but I would be very associal if I don't use it... all my friends don't know better and use this instead of icq)
-quanta!! (webdesign)
-opera!!! (my favorite browser... it's already a binary package so I don't think this is hard to create)
-kbear (ftp)
-more python stuff (eg http://www.gentoo.org/dyn/pkgs/dev-python/index.xml)


also I don't know if this has been discussed before (if it has, ignore this) but maybe add a hierarchical method of storing the packages, because there will be more and more packages and we will loose the overview

Offline

#70 2003-03-01 12:43:16

Arielext
Member
From: Amersfoort, the Netherlands
Registered: 2002-08-12
Posts: 362
Website

Re: Packages Wish-Slip

kbear is in incoming and I'll upload quanta+ next week


apt-get install arch

Offline

#71 2003-03-01 13:29:11

Nickm
Member
From: Netherlands
Registered: 2003-02-25
Posts: 104

Re: Packages Wish-Slip

hotkeys  - for multimedia keyboards
ardour    - a realtime sound proggie
hmm that's it I think


Who is peer, and why is he resetting my connection ??

Offline

#72 2003-04-03 04:14:02

jlvsimoes
Member
From: portugal
Registered: 2002-12-23
Posts: 392
Website

Re: Packages Wish-Slip

can i get www.k3b.org and transcode i do not have the skills to buid it sorry


-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
Version: 3.1
GU/ d- s: a- C L U P+ L+++ E--- W+
N 0+ K- W-- !O !M V-- PS+ PE- V++ PGP T 5 Z+ R* TV+ B+
DI-- D- G-- e-- h! r++ z+ z*
------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------

Offline

#73 2003-04-03 04:17:25

sarah31
Member
From: Middle of Canada
Registered: 2002-08-20
Posts: 2,975
Website

Re: Packages Wish-Slip

k3b is on my list if i ever get a chance transcode has been in the unofficial tree since december


AKA uknowme

I am not your friend

Offline

#74 2003-04-03 21:52:25

jlvsimoes
Member
From: portugal
Registered: 2002-12-23
Posts: 392
Website

Re: Packages Wish-Slip

it did tongue ops ... thak you ...


-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
Version: 3.1
GU/ d- s: a- C L U P+ L+++ E--- W+
N 0+ K- W-- !O !M V-- PS+ PE- V++ PGP T 5 Z+ R* TV+ B+
DI-- D- G-- e-- h! r++ z+ z*
------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------

Offline

#75 2003-04-06 12:13:35

Moritz
Member
From: Cologne, NRW, Germany
Registered: 2002-10-12
Posts: 166

Re: Packages Wish-Slip

Hey Guys!

I got a new wish: djbdns
It's a DNS by D.J. Bernstein. He's famous for his stable and bugfree code. So it might be more interesting, for people who need a more secure DNS than BIND.
Here's the official homepage: http://cr.yp.to/djbdns.html
and here's a djbdns community: http://djbdns.org


Regards,
Moritz

Offline

Board footer

Powered by FluxBB