[winswitch] Missing dependencies in CentOS 6.4 -> Bug? (not CentOS 5)

Antoine Martin antoine at nagafix.co.uk
Wed Oct 8 13:40:44 BST 2014

Hash: SHA1

On 08/10/14 18:10, Bob Tennent wrote:
>  >|> Running Centos-6.5 32-bit. That repo doesn't have a
>  >|> 0.14.9-2.
>  >|No, it doesn't. The rebuild was for CentOS 5.x as per above.
>  >|The title of this thread is about CentOS 5, not 6.
> The missing dependencies affected Centos-6 as well.
Yes, this bit was about the tcsh bug though and a CentOS 5 only rebuild
that could have helped.
But since you are talking about CentOS 6, this is moot. (thread title
>  >|>  xpra-0.14.4-1 works as a client.
>  >|>
>  >|> P.S. The new *-xpra packages make it quite hard to revert
>  >|> to an earlier version. AFAIK one has to explicitly remove
>  >|> all of them and install older versions by hand.
>  >|Older xpra builds should be compatible with most of the newer
>  >|dependencies.
>  >|The ones that are not compatible will be detected by yum.
> Yum tells you which libraries are incompatible.  Then you have the
> additional step I didn't mention of figuring out which packages
> are problematic.
Correct, but you do not have to remove "all of them".
AFAIK, only one: ffmpeg-xpra

Expanding on that: this is a "mistake" that I made in upgrading to
ffmpeg 2.4
The key selling point of splitting libraries into their own package is
that you can update them individually, and have repeatable builds - more
or less.
The problem comes when a version is abandoned upstream: there are no
good solutions then.
The split library only allow you to track upstream for as long as it is
binary compatible.
And ffmpeg 2.4 and 2.3, as you found out, are not.
The 0.14.x branch is long term support, the current plan is for about 18
month. Sticking with the exact same ffmpeg release that was available on
day one is just not an option..
I'm open to suggestions, but I hope that noone is suggesting doing a
libav fork all over again!
>  >|>  It would be
>  >|> easier if they were all bundled into the xpra package.
>  >|Absolutely no chance of ever doing this.
>  >|This is what is done on OSX and mswindows (not by choice) and is
>  >|maintenance and packaging nightmare.
> In that case, I'll stick with a version that works. I can't
> help you debug latest releases if I can't get back easily to
> a working system.
Never mind, I'm pretty sure that "tcsh" is all we needed to know to
tackle this anyway.

Version: GnuPG v2


More information about the shifter-users mailing list