PDA

View Full Version : RPMFusion - 3rd party repositories Merge


martin.sourada
11th September 2007, 08:43 AM
I just run through an interesting email on devel list which anounces merge of some of the most used 3rd party repos in Fedora - http://freshrpms.net/, http://rpm.livna.org/ and http://dribble.org.uk/. The result repository will be called rpmfusion and it will be divided into free software (as defined on fedora wiki, but which cannot be in fedora e.g. due to patent issues) and nonfree software.

More info at: https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-devel-list/2007-September/msg00750.html

Dangermouse
11th September 2007, 11:09 AM
Looking good, should make life more simple, any indication on schedule,
http://rpmfusion.org/RpmFusion

Wayne
11th September 2007, 11:23 AM
This is good news. It's about time some of these third-party repos got it together to co-operate. It'll make newbies lives much easier.

Wayne

martin.sourada
11th September 2007, 11:34 AM
Its only pity that ATRpms are not merged with them...

leigh123linux
11th September 2007, 11:44 AM
Its only pity that ATRpms are not merged with them...

I am glad that ATRpms aren't included as I have never liked their packages and they are also slow releasing new kernel mods.

But I like the idea of freshrpms and livna super repo :cool:

martin.sourada
11th September 2007, 11:50 AM
I like the idea very much, and IMHO if ATRpms were included in the megre it would be even greater. The main thing here is, more developers, more work done, faster releases, better releases. And they opted to use same guidelines as in Fedora official repos, which is also good thing.

bob
11th September 2007, 12:00 PM
I've been following the link for awhile now (before Fedora7) and it's a bumpy road, but hopefully they'll get there. It would be the biggest single improvement that I can think of to make Fedora more acceptable to users.

The New World
11th September 2007, 12:28 PM
Thats really great news, now we can have a comprehensive package list along with the fedora ones that come in the box. :)

Seve
11th September 2007, 02:41 PM
Its only pity that ATRpms are not merged with them...
Hello:
I agree, it would have made things that much better.
ATrpms was in the project at one point, but I think they dropped out back in May?

Seve

bradycl_84043
10th December 2007, 12:13 AM
Has anyone heard any kind of eta on RPM Fusion opening it's doors?

jdeslip
16th April 2008, 08:17 AM
I haven't heard much about this for awhile. Is this merger still happening? Will it be ready for fedora 9?

Hlingler
16th April 2008, 08:30 AM
I've noticed that yumex now shows a package group "RPMFusion", which includes packages for building rpmfusion...packages, all of Livna's packages show up in that group AFAIK, and some of FreshRPM's too. I haven't been following this very closely, but last time I poked around, they were moving forward.

Regards,
V

http://rpmfusion.org/
If you really want the inside poop: http://lists.rpmfusion.org/pipermail/rpmfusion-developers/

BTW, Dag (Wieers), Dries (Verachtert), and ATRPMs were also working on a merger called RPMRepo: http://rpmrepo.org/

Nokia
16th April 2008, 08:33 AM
Seems there's little activity here http://rpmfusion.org/

jdeslip
16th April 2008, 06:36 PM
Hopefully the lack of change at the website doesn't reflect on the status of the project (livna.org hardly ever changes for example but lots goes on behind the scenes).

I remember reading a note from livna awhile back saying fedora 8 was going to be their last release because they were moving to rpmfusion for fedora 9. However, we are pretty close the release candidate date now, I still wonder if they are ready...

cgrim
16th April 2008, 06:48 PM
Here you can see which packages are merged which not http://rpmfusion.org/InitialPackageMerge
I hope it will be ready for F9, but only two weeks remains until F9 release and a lot of packages are not ready (in the list spoked above) :(

sej7278
16th April 2008, 08:40 PM
yeah i think the rpmfusion idea died a death, its only really dag wieers that does anything on it now.

i've completely switched to livna now

jdeslip
16th April 2008, 09:41 PM
If that is true, it is very sad :(

Hlingler
17th April 2008, 12:24 AM
The latest messages on the RPMFusion developers mailing list that I linked to indicate that they intend to be ready for F9.

V

BTW, Dag Wieers has nothing to do with RPMFusion.

Jongi
1st May 2008, 11:35 PM
I am glad that ATRpms aren't included as I have never liked their packages and they are also slow releasing new kernel mods.


creates a bit of a problem for people running mythtv

Hlingler
1st May 2008, 11:54 PM
I am glad that ATRpms aren't included as I have never liked their packages and they are also slow releasing new kernel mods.creates a bit of a problem for people running mythtvSee Post #12: if the RPMRepo project ever gets off the ground, perhaps that will help the MythTV et al issue. I do not know the status of that RPMRepo project.

BTW, my personal experience with Axel Thimm has been cordial, and I find him both helpful and responsive to feedback (i.e., bug reports submitted to ATRPMs bugzilla). The "bad rep" that ATRPMs has is due to some very old issues (that bit me too) that are now history, as far as I can tell.

Regards,
V

Jongi
2nd May 2008, 12:16 AM
yeah i saw it. i guess i just have a personal preference for livna. it is much easier to update for instance without having to manually reinstall kmdl files with each kernel upgrade. and also you update a kernel and you have to make sure that all the kmdl files are available. livna causes me less stress.

I run an F8 mythtv box using ATRPMs and an F8 x86_64 box using livna. I can practically do a yum update -y on the x86_64 box everytime. Not so much on the mythtv box.

Hlingler
2nd May 2008, 12:33 AM
yeah i saw it. i guess i just have a personal preference for livna. it is much easier to update for instance without having to manually reinstall kmdl files with each kernel upgrade. and also you update a kernel and you have to make sure that all the kmdl files are available. livna causes me less stress.

I run an F8 mythtv box using ATRPMs and an F8 x86_64 box using livna. I can practically do a yum update -y on the x86_64 box everytime. Not so much on the mythtv box.ATRPMs offers a package called yum-plugin-kmdl that accomplishes the same thing: automatic updates to ATRPMs kmdls (or whatever they're named) with other updates. In fact, sometimes when I run a package install/update for other things, these kmdl updates auto-magically "appear" on the update list. So I guess it works....

Regards,
V

jdeslip
2nd May 2008, 01:31 AM
On a separate note, has anyone heard anything else about rpmfusion yet? Is it going to be ready?

Hlingler
2nd May 2008, 01:43 AM
On a separate note, has anyone heard anything else about rpmfusion yet? Is it going to be ready?Have you checked the RPMFusion developers mailing list linked above? A quick poke around there seems to indicate that they're in no particular hurry, Real-Life situations being involved and all....

V

Jongi
2nd May 2008, 09:17 AM
ATRPMs offers a package called yum-plugin-kmdl that accomplishes the same thing: automatic updates to ATRPMs kmdls (or whatever they're named) with other updates. In fact, sometimes when I run a package install/update for other things, these kmdl updates auto-magically "appear" on the update list. So I guess it works....

Regards,
V

That is the exact type of information that I need. Thanks.

Demz
2nd May 2008, 12:24 PM
i'd expect it to bee ready by Fedora 10 if not 11 if there having real life problems,

Hlingler
7th May 2008, 07:15 AM
FWIW, I just noticed that the Dribble Repo (http://dribble.org.uk/) has posted a notice that they have stopped updates, and referring users to the RPMFusion repo. So it appears that things are in fact moving (let's hope...).

V

jdeslip
7th May 2008, 08:05 AM
That is definitely a positive sign. Hopefully livna and freshrpms have similar announcements.

LinuxTom
8th May 2008, 04:41 AM
Lets hope it all goes well with RPMfusion, several weeks ago, I spent hours rebuilding ATrpms MythTV packages to work with Livna dependencies, just to find out, that a repo called kwizart, had MythTV packages ready to go. After checking the specs, it became obvious that these packages originated from RPMfusion, they seem to be working on some much needed packages, I hope it works out for them.

kevmif
10th May 2008, 06:51 AM
Any update on this? Fedora 9 is all but released - would be nice to see RPM fusion working!

Hlingler
10th May 2008, 07:16 AM
Every time I've checked the RPMFusion "Configuration" page (http://rpmfusion.org/Configuration), including just now, it says: "try back later." :(

V

Firewing1
10th May 2008, 04:00 PM
The new buildserver is up but there's some trouble with anonymous CVS, needed for the buildserver - As far as I know, once that's up then rpmfusion will be ready for use.
Firewing1

Hlingler
10th May 2008, 04:19 PM
YAY! Thanx for the update FireWing1.

V

Driftwould
10th May 2008, 05:17 PM
On my Fedora 8 system RPMFusion shows up in pirut. I downloaded some stuff off of it this morning and from my view point it seems to be up and operational. :)

Firewing1
10th May 2008, 05:22 PM
Are you sure? RPMFusion isn't the same as RPMForge!
Firewing1

Hlingler
10th May 2008, 05:37 PM
On my Fedora 8 system RPMFusion shows up in pirut. I downloaded some stuff off of it this morning and from my view point it seems to be up and operational. :)I have noticed in YUMEX for quite some time that a number of packages (mainly Livna's) show up tagged as "RPMFusion" in the "Group View", however, this is not the same as a consolidated, configured repo: the packages are still pulled from the individual repo(s), and the individual repo files are still in place and being used by yum....

V

Thetargos
10th May 2008, 07:00 PM
The new buildserver is up but there's some trouble with anonymous CVS, needed for the buildserver - As far as I know, once that's up then rpmfusion will be ready for use.
Firewing1
Wouldn't it be best to switch to SVN for version control? CVS is ancient now and, though functional, is a PITA to maintain and not as efficient as SVN.

Driftwould
10th May 2008, 09:11 PM
Sorry, I guess Hlinger explained it. I'm definitely a n00bie, I saw RPMFusion Free and Non-free and thought the merger was will on its way. I'm still learning the front-end, much less the back-end. :confused:

Hlingler
11th May 2008, 01:41 AM
Sorry, I guess Hlinger explained it. I'm definitely a n00bie, I saw RPMFusion Free and Non-free and thought the merger was will on its way. I'm still learning the front-end, much less the back-end. :confused:Well, this really is a big deal, I know it is for me and probably quite a few other people who have used Fedora for a while. I also assumed that those tags indicated a merger that is well on it's way - but just a step or two short of a reality.

Since the Fedora Project itself releases only completely free-and-open-source software, we have had to rely on 3rd-party repositories to get the proprietary or "patent-encumbered" (or questionable status) software "goodies" we want/need, particularly device drivers (ATI, nvidia cards), multiledia codecs, etc.. Historically speaking the two major 3rd-party repos involved in this merger (Livna and FreshRPMs) have been mutually incompatible, so acquiring software from either (or any) meant excluding the other(s), or going to great lengths to avoid the infamous "repo hell" that often resulted from mixing incompatible packages from multiple 3rd-party repos. So this merger represents a great step forward IMO towards eliminating that concern. Personally, I like both and have frequently been confronted by such conflicts/dilemnas. I certainly support the merger whole-heartedly and wish them all the best. And I do appreciate the (free as in no-fee) software and services that they have provided to me and the entire community. To be perfectly honest, I've come to rely on it.

Regards,
V

jdeslip
13th May 2008, 01:14 AM
We are now only one day away. I am not feeling good about this...

DCOH
13th May 2008, 04:57 AM
I updated F9 tonight and all the Compiz stuff came from the Fusion repo but not sure that means anything.

jdeslip
13th May 2008, 05:00 AM
the fusion repo is leighs repo for compiz and screenlets. It has nothing to do with rpmfusion

Hlingler
22nd May 2008, 02:30 AM
News: http://forums.fedoraforum.org/forum/showpost.php?p=1016040&postcount=69

Jongi
22nd May 2008, 10:33 PM
kwizart has mythtv repos?

EDIT: The diffrence between the two is vast though. In that the theme plays a significant part in how the whole package is presented, I guess though one can compile the themes individually?


[root:/#] yum list --enablerepo kwizart | grep mythtv
mythtv.x86_64 0.21-4.fc8.kwizart kwizart
mythtv-backend.x86_64 0.21-4.fc8.kwizart kwizart
mythtv-base-themes.x86_64 0.21-4.fc8.kwizart kwizart
mythtv-debuginfo.x86_64 0.21-4.fc8.kwizart kwizart
mythtv-docs.x86_64 0.21-4.fc8.kwizart kwizart
mythtv-frontend.x86_64 0.21-4.fc8.kwizart kwizart
mythtv-setup.x86_64 0.21-4.fc8.kwizart kwizart
mythtv-themes.noarch 0.21-1.fc8.kwizart kwizart


[root:/#] yum list --enablerepo atrpms | grep mythtv
libmythtv-0.20.2_0.x86_64 0.20.2-175.fc8 atrpms
libmythtv-0.21_0.x86_64 0.21-187.fc8 atrpms
mythtv.x86_64 0.21-187.fc8 atrpms
mythtv-backend.x86_64 0.21-187.fc8 atrpms
mythtv-devel.x86_64 0.21-187.fc8 atrpms
mythtv-docs.x86_64 0.21-187.fc8 atrpms
mythtv-frontend.x86_64 0.21-187.fc8 atrpms
mythtv-setup.x86_64 0.21-187.fc8 atrpms
mythtv-theme-MePo-wide.noarch 0.45-1 atrpms
mythtv-theme-MediaCenter.noarch 0.17-5.at atrpms
mythtv-theme-MediaCenterOSD.noarch 0.17-6.at atrpms
mythtv-theme-MediaCenterWeb.noarch 0.17-5.at atrpms
mythtv-theme-MythCenter.noarch 0.17-2.at atrpms
mythtv-theme-ProjectGrayhem.noarch 2.20080308-1 atrpms
mythtv-theme-ProjectGrayhem-OSD.noarch 2.20080308-1 atrpms
mythtv-theme-ProjectGrayhem-wide.noarch 2.20080308-1 atrpms
mythtv-theme-Retro.noarch 0.20051208-2.at atrpms
mythtv-theme-Titivillus.noarch 0.20040807-5.at atrpms
mythtv-theme-abstract.noarch 0.20040910-3.at atrpms
mythtv-theme-blootube.noarch 0.20080308-1 atrpms
mythtv-theme-blootube-osd.noarch 0.20080308-1 atrpms
mythtv-theme-blootube-wide.noarch 0.20080308-1 atrpms
mythtv-theme-blootubelite-wide.noarch 0.20080308-1 atrpms
mythtv-theme-gant.noarch 0.pr1-3.at atrpms
mythtv-theme-isthmus.noarch 0.20040804-2.at atrpms
mythtv-theme-neon-wide.noarch 0.20080308-1 atrpms
mythtv-theme-photo.noarch 4-7.at atrpms
mythtv-theme-purplegalaxy.noarch 0.20031214-4.at atrpms
mythtv-theme-sleek.noarch 0.35-3.at atrpms
mythtv-theme-visor.noarch 1:0.16.2-6.at atrpms
mythtv-themes.x86_64 0.21-187.fc8 atrpms

Firewing1
23rd May 2008, 01:57 AM
Judging by the package names I'm guessing kwizart chose to put a many of the themes into one common package. I work with kwizart to maintain the nVidia drivers, he's a good packager so don't be afraid to try his repo out.

Firewing1

jdeslip
13th July 2008, 02:01 AM
Any news on rpmfusion? Is it coming? Is it dead??

Demz
13th July 2008, 02:06 AM
i somehow think it wont be ready till Fedora11 gets out

Nokia
14th July 2008, 10:11 PM
Demz, I just saw that link in your signature referring to RPM. Can you explain why the big gap between Fedora/CentOS rpm versions and the current version on rpm5.org ? I read a few months ago that version 5 was out an I hoped it will land in F9. Do you have more info on the matter ?

Demz
15th July 2008, 06:28 AM
Demz, I just saw that link in your signature referring to RPM. Can you explain why the big gap between Fedora/CentOS rpm versions and the current version on rpm5.org ? I read a few months ago that version 5 was out an I hoped it will land in F9. Do you have more info on the matter ?
RPM5 is not the official RPM.. its a community based project ..Jeff Johnson does that along with the other RPM5 Project leaders,..RPM4.4.2.3 an 4.6.0 is the official RPM from redhat..People from RPM5 do not get paid for doing work on rpm5 from what i understand..CentOS uses the official RPM not Jeff Johnsons Maintained one,,, infact i dont even know what distro uses RPM5 so far ..

Nokia
15th July 2008, 08:03 AM
Thanks for clearing that up. :)

Demz
15th July 2008, 08:10 AM
Thanks for clearing that up. :)
No problemo :) Redhat does have the official RPM4.4.2 also,, why Distrowatch changed the RPM link to RPM5 beats me when its not even official one,

Jongi
18th July 2008, 09:08 PM
Judging by the package names I'm guessing kwizart chose to put a many of the themes into one common package. I work with kwizart to maintain the nVidia drivers, he's a good packager so don't be afraid to try his repo out.

Firewing1

EDIT: Don't worry, I sent him a message on his form on http://blog.kwizart.fr

For others who are interested it ws this


You have some MythTV packages. Does your themes package include all the themes that atrpms includes seperately? If not all, which ones do you provide?

Also, the atrpms packages require kmdl packages. These are the ones I have installed. what would the replacement packages be if you use diffrent files?


alsa-kmdl-2.6.25.6-27.fc8.i686 1.0.17-67_rc3.fc8 installed
lirc-kmdl-2.6.25.6-27.fc8.i686 0.8.4-80_cvs20080528.f installed
video4linux-ivtv-kmdl-2.6.25.6-27.fc8.i6 1:20080622-86.fc8 installed
video4linux-kmdl-2.6.25.6-27.fc8.i686 1:20080622-86.fc8 installed

Hlingler
19th July 2008, 05:55 AM
Any news on rpmfusion? Is it coming? Is it dead??http://lists.rpmfusion.org/pipermail/rpmfusion-developers/2008-July/000578.html

V

JN4OldSchool
19th July 2008, 02:05 PM
I tried to copy the block of text about deciding what to do about the kernel modules but couldnt. You can read that yourself. Doesnt sound very reassuring...:rolleyes:

Firewing1
19th July 2008, 04:52 PM
P.S.: *Don't* announce this repos to widely yet please. There is still a
ton of work that needs to be done; and a lot of stuff that can break on
that way. I'm aslo sure there are some errors, so some things (path?)
still might need to be adjusted...
Well, I wasn't supposed supposed to announce it but seeing as you've already found it ;)

Shouldn't be long now.
Firewing1

kevmif
17th August 2008, 09:20 AM
Can anyone say with any degree of certainty if we will see RPMFusion up and running in full in time for the F10 release?

I had high hopes that we would see it up and running in time for F9 - but oh well.

Personally I think that RPMFusion is a great idea and can't wait til its generally available.

Demz
17th August 2008, 09:56 AM
Can anyone say with any degree of certainty if we will see RPMFusion up and running in full in time for the F10 release?

I had high hopes that we would see it up and running in time for F9 - but oh well.

Personally I think that RPMFusion is a great idea and can't wait til its generally available.
i dont know whats going on with it but i think i'd expect it to be fully out the door by the time fedora11 is released , i dont think its quite ready yet as its still in the testing process

Firewing1
17th August 2008, 09:05 PM
It's getting very close. The work on CVS and the buildsystem has been finished and the repository is being populated. You can check out the mailing list archives for more info: http://lists.rpmfusion.org/mailman/listinfo/rpmfusion-developers
Firewing1

Demz
18th August 2008, 02:35 AM
thats great news i take it it'll be ready after Fedora10 is out?

Firewing1
18th August 2008, 07:44 PM
I'd imagine so, if not sooner :D
Firewing1

sej7278
18th August 2008, 09:05 PM
so let me get this right - rpmfusion is going to be rebuilding livna packages too - i thought it was initially supposed to be dag, dries and atrpms. wow if you add livna to that lot then you've got a one-stop place for packages - especially if you can get atrpm's mythtv and firewire packages to co-operate.

that seals the fate of f9 for me - i'm waiting until f10 before i upgrade from f7!

Belkira
18th August 2008, 11:52 PM
No, that is http://rpmrepo.org/ and a different project.

Firewing1
19th August 2008, 04:43 PM
Yup, rpmfusion is dribble, livna and freshrpms. ATRPMs, RPMForge and a few others are becoming rpmrepo.
Firewing1

jdeslip
26th August 2008, 10:08 PM
Are the mythtv packages available yet?

Firewing1
27th August 2008, 01:07 AM
They're in CVS, but I don't think they've been built for Fedora 8/9 yet.
Firewing1

jdeslip
7th September 2008, 05:17 AM
Is there an estimated release date yet?

Demz
7th September 2008, 05:27 AM
Is there an estimated release date yet?
i think you'll find it'll be ready around the release of fedora10 if not just after the release

jdeslip
9th September 2008, 09:24 PM
Ah, I was hoping it was just a few days away...

Demz
10th September 2008, 01:56 AM
there are lots of packages to rebuild so its bound to be a slow process.. fedora10 RPMfusion should be ready pretty Much when fedora10 is released, ,, its just gonna take time for Fedora9 an 8 ropm's to be rebuilt to

jdeslip
24th September 2008, 10:30 PM
So, the kwizart repo seems to be gone (probably because his packages are going into rpmfusion?). Is there any place to get the myth packages right now. I am almost ashamed to say it, but I want to record dancing with the stars...

Jongi
29th September 2008, 10:41 PM
livna i think carries some myth packages

jdeslip
29th September 2008, 10:53 PM
huh! So it does...

*hangs head in shame.

Hlingler
15th October 2008, 01:55 AM
http://forums.fedoraforum.org/showthread.php?t=201719
http://thorstenl.blogspot.com/2008/10/first-steps-of-transition-from-livna-to.html

V

Firewing1
15th October 2008, 06:48 PM
As noted in Thorsten's blog, you can start helping RPM Fusion by testing out the new repositories. The F-8/F-9 repositories aren't quite complete yet in terms of built packages, but the rpmfusion rawhide repositories for Fedora development/F10Beta/F10Snap1 are relatively complete.
F-8/F-9 testers should run:
rpm -ivh http://download1.rpmfusion.org/free/fedora/rpmfusion-free-release-rawhide.noarch.rpm \
http://download1.rpmfusion.org/nonfree/fedora/rpmfusion-nonfree-release-rawhide.noarch.rpm
Rawhide/F10Beta/F10Snap1 users should run:

rpm -ivh http://download1.rpmfusion.org/free/fedora/rpmfusion-free-release-rawhide.noarch.rpm \
http://download1.rpmfusion.org/nonfree/fedora/rpmfusion-nonfree-release-rawhide.noarch.rpm


The RPM Fusion repository is still compatible with all "old" repositories (ie Livna, Dribble and FreshRPMs) although if you experience any conflicts try disabling the old ones before reporting a bug. When the time comes, the RPM Fusion release package will automatically obsolete the older ones.

(For more info, read the official announcement here: http://lists.rpmfusion.org/pipermail/rpmfusion-developers/2008-October/001601.html)

Firewing1

DCOH
15th October 2008, 08:05 PM
On the latest updates to F10 it installed rpmfusion repo and imported the keys needed to install packages.

Yentor
25th October 2008, 10:41 AM
@localhost ~]$ rpm -ivh http://download1.rpmfusion.org/free/fedora/rpmfusion-free-release-rawhide.noarch.rpm http://download1.rpmfusion.org/nonfree/fedora/rpmfusion-nonfree-release-rawhide.noarch.rpm
Retrieving http://download1.rpmfusion.org/free/fedora/rpmfusion-free-release-rawhide.noarch.rpm
Retrieving http://download1.rpmfusion.org/nonfree/fedora/rpmfusion-nonfree-release-rawhide.noarch.rpm
warning: /var/tmp/rpm-xfer.3VznDz: Header V3 DSA signature: NOKEY, key ID 49c8885a
warning: /var/tmp/rpm-xfer.64LKqB: Header V3 DSA signature: NOKEY, key ID b1981b68
error: Failed dependencies:
system-release >= 9.90 is needed by rpmfusion-free-release-9.90-4.noarch
system-release >= 9.90 is needed by rpmfusion-nonfree-release-9.90-4.noarch
[@localhost ~]$
??? i didnt find the system release package

martin.sourada
25th October 2008, 10:46 AM
@localhost ~]$ rpm -ivh http://download1.rpmfusion.org/free/fedora/rpmfusion-free-release-rawhide.noarch.rpm http://download1.rpmfusion.org/nonfree/fedora/rpmfusion-nonfree-release-rawhide.noarch.rpm
Retrieving http://download1.rpmfusion.org/free/fedora/rpmfusion-free-release-rawhide.noarch.rpm
Retrieving http://download1.rpmfusion.org/nonfree/fedora/rpmfusion-nonfree-release-rawhide.noarch.rpm
warning: /var/tmp/rpm-xfer.3VznDz: Header V3 DSA signature: NOKEY, key ID 49c8885a
warning: /var/tmp/rpm-xfer.64LKqB: Header V3 DSA signature: NOKEY, key ID b1981b68
error: Failed dependencies:
system-release >= 9.90 is needed by rpmfusion-free-release-9.90-4.noarch
system-release >= 9.90 is needed by rpmfusion-nonfree-release-9.90-4.noarch
[@localhost ~]$
??? i didnt find the system release package

$ rpmquery --whatprovides system-release
fedora-release-9.92-1.noarch

Yentor
25th October 2008, 10:49 AM
@localhost ~]$ rpmquery --whatprovides system-release
fedora-release-9-5.transition.noarch

how can i upgrade?

Demz
25th October 2008, 10:51 AM
what are you trying to upgrade to?.. RPMFusion ?

Yentor
25th October 2008, 11:06 AM
yes, im trying to install rpmfusion repo, but it requires 9.90 system release and i dont know how to upgrade that package

Demz
25th October 2008, 11:16 AM
there's another thread on it i think.. should be justrpm -ivh (urls) follow this link .. make sure you use the right one,, not the one for fedora 10 http://thorstenl.blogspot.com/2008/10/first-steps-of-transition-from-livna-to.html

For fedora 9

rpm -ivh http://download1.rpmfusion.org/free/fedora/rpmfusion-free-release-stable.noarch.rpm \
http://download1.rpmfusion.org/nonfree/fedora/rpmfusion-nonfree-release-stable.noarch.rpm


For Fedora10

rpm -ivh http://download1.rpmfusion.org/free/fedora/rpmfusion-free-release-rawhide.noarch.rpm \
http://download1.rpmfusion.org/nonfree/fedora/rpmfusion-nonfree-release-rawhide.noarch.rpm

nucleo
25th October 2008, 06:52 PM
libdvdcss and libdvdplay are absent in rpmfusion.
Is transition from livna to rpmfusion leads to loss of some functionality?
For example k9copy is build without libdvdcss
* Sat Sep 20 01:00:00 2008 Rex Dieter <rdieter@fedoraproject.org> 1.2.2-3
- drop Requires: libdvdcss
and mplayer
* Fri Oct 17 01:00:00 2008 Dominik Mierzejewski <rpm at greysector.net> - 1.0-0.97.20080818svn.1
- remove libdvdcss copy from the source tarball
When libdvdcss will be included in rpmfusion?

Hlingler
26th October 2008, 12:19 AM
@nucleo: Not sure, but maybe this helps: http://rpmfusion.org/InitialPackageMerge

See the list of obsoletes/dropped at the bottom.

V

nucleo
26th October 2008, 02:55 PM
@nucleo: Not sure, but maybe this helps: http://rpmfusion.org/InitialPackageMerge

See the list of obsoletes/dropped at the bottom.
libdvdcss is not in list of obsolete/dropped packages but it not merged.

AlFrugal
27th October 2008, 09:36 PM
I'm a novice level user of Fedora 9. I use the nvidia driver for my graphics card. I noticed the following in the latest (Oct 27) issue of Fedora Weekly News (#149):

Users who currently have the Livna repository enabled can transition to
the new RPM Fusion repository by:

yum install rpmfusion-free-release rpmfusion-nonfree-release


I installed the above packages using Yumex (Yum GUI). After the install, I was prompted to install a number of updates. These included the nvidia kernel module plus a number of nvidia- related packages for 2.6.26.5-45.fc9. The problem is that this is downlevel. My current kernel level is 2.6.26.6.

What should I do? (If I just ignore the notification, packagekit displays a non-removable nasty red icon.)

Hlingler
27th October 2008, 10:45 PM
Disable the RPMFusion repos until the transition is complete and the "bugs" sorted out....

V

ryptyde
28th October 2008, 05:28 PM
I'm a novice level user of Fedora 9. I use the nvidia driver for my graphics card. I noticed the following in the latest (Oct 27) issue of Fedora Weekly News (#149):

Users who currently have the Livna repository enabled can transition to
the new RPM Fusion repository by:

yum install rpmfusion-free-release rpmfusion-nonfree-release


I installed the above packages using Yumex (Yum GUI). After the install, I was prompted to install a number of updates. These included the nvidia kernel module plus a number of nvidia- related packages for 2.6.26.5-45.fc9. The problem is that this is downlevel. My current kernel level is 2.6.26.6.

What should I do? (If I just ignore the notification, packagekit displays a non-removable nasty red icon.)

I have the Livna repo enabled and my installed kernel is 2.2.26.6-79.fc9 and kmod-nvidia-2.6.26.6-79.fc9.i686 without having rpm-fusion releases installed.

AlFrugal
28th October 2008, 10:44 PM
ryptyde writes : " I have the Livna repo enabled and my installed kernel is 2.2.26.6-79.fc9 and kmod-nvidia-2.6.26.6-79.fc9.i686 without having rpm-fusion releases installed."

Same for me. I wasn't having a problem getting the latest nvidia driver. It's just that I read in the latest Fedora Weekly News how to enable rpm-fusion and I interpreted it to mean that rpm-fusion should be enabled at this time.

Question to hlingler: You recommend that for the time being, I disable the rpm-fusion repos. I viewed the software-sources GUI and noticed a number of rpm-fusion repos got enabled as a result of installing the two rpm-fusion packages. Two of the repos look suspicious to me, and I wonder if I disable them for now, should I re-enable them later or should I leave them permanently disabled. Those two are 1. RPM Fusion for Fedora 9 - Free - Test Updates and 2. RPM Fusion for Fedora 9 - Non- Free - Test Updates

Hlingler
28th October 2008, 10:53 PM
Question to hlingler: You recommend that for the time being, I disable the rpm-fusion repos. I viewed the software-sources GUI and noticed a number of rpm-fusion repos got enabled as a result of installing the two rpm-fusion packages. Two of the repos look suspicious to me, and I wonder if I disable them for now, should I re-enable them later or should I leave them permanently disabled. Those two are 1. RPM Fusion for Fedora 9 - Free - Test Updates and 2. RPM Fusion for Fedora 9 - Non- Free - Test UpdatesThat's entirely your choice. Personally, I prefer never to permanently NUKE something unless I'm sure I'll never need/use it. In this case, that is not so. OTOH, enabling any repo labeled "Testing" is a risk that you must be willing to accept, since "testing" implies exactly that: untested, "beta"-quality, possibly broken or could-break-stuff software.

My recommendation is to disable them for now, and leave them disabled until such time as you decide you'd like to try untested packages. At that time, you can temporarily enable either, neither, or both as you see fit.

V

DennyCrane
3rd November 2008, 03:22 PM
RPMFusion appears to be live. Livna Repository just download a new repo file which is connecting me to RPMFusion.

Hlingler
3rd November 2008, 07:24 PM
RPMFusion appears to be live. Livna Repository just download a new repo file which is connecting me to RPMFusion.Sounds to me like the "official" switch-over is under way.

V

Vladi
3rd November 2008, 07:38 PM
RPMFusion appears to be live. Livna Repository just download a new repo file which is connecting me to RPMFusion.

Confirmed!
Latest Livna update: livna-release-9-2.noarch.rpm
changelog:
Wed Oct 15 00:00:00 2008 Thorsten Leemhuis <fedora[AT]leemhuis.info> - 9-2
- add hard deps on rpmfusion-{non,}free-release to move users over to
RPM Fusion
- mark configs as noreplace

So rpmfusion is here?

NoEffex
3rd November 2008, 09:25 PM
Thus far, I'm loving RPMFusion and it's various packages, more so than I enjoyed livna.

DennyCrane
3rd November 2008, 09:28 PM
Does anyone have any idea if we should/need to keep the "Livna" repo enabled in Software Sources?? There are several for "RPMFusion" now, but I'm just not sure if there's any reason I might need to keep the old one? (like, are ALL the packages available in RPMF now?)

Demz
3rd November 2008, 10:51 PM
by rights you shouldnt need to keep Livna enabled cause RPMFusion is based from Livna/Dribble/FreshRPMs

DennyCrane
3rd November 2008, 11:06 PM
by rights you shouldnt need to keep Livna enabled cause RPMFusion is based from Livna/Dribble/FreshRPMs

huh? I don't understand what you mean. I know that those repositories were combined into RPMFusion. You're saying I need to keep the old livna repo enabled in order to use the new RPMFusion repo?

Hlingler
3rd November 2008, 11:08 PM
Does anyone have any idea if we should/need to keep the "Livna" repo enabled in Software Sources?? There are several for "RPMFusion" now, but I'm just not sure if there's any reason I might need to keep the old one? (like, are ALL the packages available in RPMF now?)Based on this post: http://lists.rpmfusion.org/pipermail/rpmfusion-developers/2008-October/001601.html

I'm inclined to think that one should leave Livna enabled, and let everything happen automatically.

V

Demz
3rd November 2008, 11:25 PM
why would you leave Livna enabled? its been clearly said that RPMFusion is now official,, you do not need to leave Livna repo enabled, its just a waste. when using yum its just gonna be looking at a empty repo

DennyCrane
3rd November 2008, 11:29 PM
why would you leave Livna enabled? its been clearly said that RPMFusion is now official,, you do not need to leave Livna repo enabled, its just a waste. when using yum its just gonna be looking at a empty repo

Sorry, Demz, I must be pretty out of it. I read your post backwards and inside-out.

Demz
3rd November 2008, 11:39 PM
Sorry, Demz, I must be pretty out of it. I read your post backwards and inside-out.

just disable Livna an leave RPMFusion enabled,

lovenemesis
4th November 2008, 12:34 AM
It's great to see that the merging work has been done. :)

ogetbilo
4th November 2008, 01:17 AM
Yes rpmfusion is alive. We dropped a few packages during the merge (very old packages which are not updated by their upstream for a long time). If you happen to need anything from those packages just let us know. You can use the mailing list for that purpose.

chousho
4th November 2008, 02:51 AM
GASP! FGLRX! OFFICIAL? OFFICIAL FGLRX FINALLY?

Thank you guys who work on Livna/RPMFusion soooo much <3

*dies*

Yeah, it was there for the test repos, but.. .but~ *sobs*

Now to do this without breaking X *huffle shuffle*

Demz
4th November 2008, 03:03 AM
RPMFusion is Now Official http://rpmfusion.org/Configuration

chousho
4th November 2008, 04:31 AM
Now to do this without breaking X *huffle shuffle*

Hmm, is the current build of fglrx a bit... slower compared to before? I'm not really noticing any better luck playing games than I did with the OSS drivers. Hmmm ~_~

Hlingler
4th November 2008, 04:33 AM
Hmm, is the current build of fglrx a bit... slower compared to before? I'm not really noticing any better luck playing games than I did with the OSS drivers. Hmmm ~_~

Please start a new thread to address this issue - keep this thread focused on RPMFusion release/integration.

Thanks,
V

attilahooper
5th November 2008, 03:55 AM
trying to yum install

Loaded plugins: refresh-packagekit
rpmfusion-nonfree-rawhide | 2.7 kB 00:00
rpmfusion-nonfree-rawhide/primary_db | 72 kB 00:00
http://download1.rpmfusion.org/free/fedora/updates/9.93/i386/repodata/repomd.xml: [Errno 14] HTTP Error 404: Not Found

maxamillion
5th November 2008, 04:27 AM
probably just a bad mirror, I've had that happen to be before (not with rpmfusion though) and it was fine later ( i assume the mirror in question got their issue sorted out). Hope it gets figured out.

Anything that might be more informative in your /var/log/yum.log?

attilahooper
5th November 2008, 04:47 AM
nothing in yum.log

Demz
5th November 2008, 04:51 AM
please keep RPMFusion Related Stuff To The RPMFusion Thread

im gonna merge thread

attilahooper
5th November 2008, 01:22 PM
10-4 DEMZ.

still got this problem as of this morn, trying to yum install some mp3 players.

[attilahooper@quadcore 1.24]$ sudo yum install audacious audacious-plugins-nonfree*
[sudo] password for attilahooper:
Loaded plugins: refresh-packagekit
rpmfusion-nonfree-rawhide | 2.7 kB 00:00
rpmfusion-free-rawhide | 2.7 kB 00:00
http://mirror.liberty.edu/pub/rpmfusion/free/fedora/updates/9.93/i386/repodata/repomd.xml: [Errno 14] HTTP Error 404: Not Found
Trying other mirror.
ftp://ftp-stud.hs-esslingen.de/pub/Mirrors/rpmfusion.org/free/fedora/updates/9.93/i386/repodata/repomd.xml: [Errno 4] IOError: [Errno ftp error] 550 Failed to change directory.
Trying other mirror.
ftp://ftp.nb.lug.ro/rpmfusion/free/fedora/updates/9.93/i386/repodata/repomd.xml: [Errno 4] IOError: [Errno ftp error] 550 Failed to change directory.
Trying other mirror.
.
.
.
and on and on and on.

ogetbilo
5th November 2008, 03:01 PM
atillahooper, how exactly did you install rpmfusion repo configurations?
Did you edit the repo files?
Did rpmfusion ever work for you with the very current configuration?

sej7278
5th November 2008, 03:35 PM
are we supposed to disable the livna.repo now, as when i did a yum update it pulled in the new fusion repo's, but didn't disable livna. it all works, but i just would like to remove or at least disable an un-needed repo (if it is un-needed).

EDIT: just looked earlier through the thread, although no "official" answer it seems the consensus is to disable livna.

ogetbilo
5th November 2008, 05:36 PM
sej7278,
You can disable l-f-d (livna and/or freshrpms and/or dribble). It won't do harm. It might get disabled by rpmfusion-*-release in a future update.
However there are two cases where you might want to keep it enabled:

1- A small number of old packages are dropped during the merge. If you disable l-f-d you won't have access to them.

2- libdvdXYZ packages are not carried to rpmfusion due to patent issues. If you need access to those packages you should keep l-f-d enabled.

But you can always temporarily enable l-f-d if you need such packages.

sej7278
5th November 2008, 08:01 PM
2- libdvdXYZ packages are not carried to rpmfusion due to patent issues. If you need access to those packages you should keep l-f-d enabled.

what's going to happen to libdvdcss in future then - if we can't get it from rpmfusion when livna goes bye-byes, how do we get it - please don't say another [possibly incompatible] repo?

what's with the patent issues - are the rpmfusion guys usa-based not european?

ogetbilo
5th November 2008, 09:02 PM
sej7278,
livna won't shut down until there is a better place for libdvdXYZ.
You can always grab the SRPM if you'd like to build it yourself.

Tres Rios Travel Photos on Instagram - East Cleveland Photos on Instagram - Dogbo Travel Photos on Instagram