XBMC's 10.0 Beta1 has finally been made available :)
Created attachment 245566 [details] xbmc-10.0_beta1.ebuild
Created attachment 246165 [details] Ebuild with hal use-flag Are you sure all those dependencies are still needed? According to http://trac.xbmc.org/ticket/9200 at least hal is not needed anymore (which is something I really appreciate :)). Also, I thought XBMC uses some kind of "date-versioning", the current milestone is called "10.05".
(In reply to comment #2) HAL should probably be removed all together. Did it ever get coded to the point where it actually did something within XBMC other than just some HAL events in the debug log that never got mapped to anything ? > Also, I thought XBMC uses some kind of "date-versioning", the current milestone is called "10.05". Do you have a link ? I know the XBMC team announced the date versioning thing back in 2008 but I'm unsure as to whether it's being adhered to now. As far as I can see, XBMC are just calling it Dharma-Beta1, while out on the world wide internet it's being called 10.0. All the dependencies could probably use an audit, I simply used the 9.11-r4 ebuild as a template and added some deps. into it's list.
I checked the #xbmc IRC channel and I'm hearing that version numbers won't be applied to this or newer releases, this release will simply be termed "Dharma" by the XBMC devs, and the next release will (apparently) be "Eden". This is backed up by their Trac only listing these options for releases. I also got a vague hint that the initials will follow an alphabetic order (Dharma -> D, Eden -> E, so release after that will start with F).
There's new beta - XBMC Dhrama beta 2
Created attachment 247547 [details] Ebuild for XBMC Dharma beta2
Created attachment 247650 [details] Added RDEPEND on libmodplug Beta2 at least requires libmodplug, added to RDEPEND (not sure if this would apply to beta1 as well)
OK, the versioning is correct, XBMC call it 10.0-Beta(X) as seen in 'System > System Info'. Attached below is beta2 ebuild with the following additions: - Make 'hal' an option - Add libmodplug dep. - Fix revision number for beta2 tag - Get httpd working for systems that have IPv6 (see trac.xbmc.org/ticket/9052)
Created attachment 247669 [details] xbmc-10.0_beta2.ebuild
Created attachment 247671 [details] xbmc-10.0-httpd_disable-ipv6.patch
Running stable ffmpeg (0.5_p20373), I get compilation errors regarding av_metadata_set2. The internal ffmpeg is version 0.6, so I just unmasked that (ffmpeg-0.6)and its compiling fine for now. Not sure if ffmpeg-0.5_p22846 will compile, haven't tested.
(In reply to comment #11) > Running stable ffmpeg (0.5_p20373), I get compilation errors regarding > av_metadata_set2. The internal ffmpeg is version 0.6, so I just unmasked that > (ffmpeg-0.6)and its compiling fine for now. Not sure if ffmpeg-0.5_p22846 will > compile, haven't tested. Same here. It does compile and work with ffmpeg-0.5_p22846 but probably better to stick with the same version they use internally.
Comment on attachment 247669 [details] xbmc-10.0_beta2.ebuild do not go stripping random stuff from the ebuild because you dont think it's relevant. the only version that would go into the tree is one based on the current 9999 ebuild.
(In reply to comment #13) > (From update of attachment 247669 [details]) > do not go stripping random stuff from the ebuild because you dont think it's > relevant. the only version that would go into the tree is one based on the > current 9999 ebuild. > No problem Spanky, glad we could help in some way. Can you elaborate on your comments as to what stuff you mean ? Are you saying that you won't be committing any ebuilds into the tree for XBMC's beta releases ? If so we should rename this bug back to [New ebuild] and assign to maintainer-wanted@gentoo.org for the beta ebuilds.
that isnt what i said. "the only version that would go into the tree is one based on the current 9999 ebuild" -> write a 10.0 ebuild based on the 9999 ebuild. and dont go stripping random things you dont understand (like all of the PV logic).
(In reply to comment #15) > that isnt what i said. "the only version that would go into the tree is one > based on the current 9999 ebuild" -> write a 10.0 ebuild based on the 9999 > ebuild. and dont go stripping random things you dont understand (like all of > the PV logic). OK, will do. Can I ask what is the purpose of having 9999 PV logic in the stable 9.11 ebuild (and vice versa) ?
i dont like maintaining multiple ebuilds. easier to `cp`.
Created attachment 248517 [details] Patch for inputlirc Just stumbled on the following bug: http://trac.xbmc.org/ticket/10088 With this patch my Hama-Remote is working again.
Created attachment 251665 [details] xbmc-10.0_beta3.ebuild
Created attachment 256049 [details] XBMC Dharma RC1
Dharma is released. http://xbmc.org/theuni/2010/12/18/xbmc-10-0/
I have ebuild in my overlay, feel free to install: $ layman -o -f http://gpo.zugaina.org/lst/gpo-repositories.xml $ layman -a iElectric $ autounmask media-tv/xbmc-10.0 $ emerge -av xbmc
not adding any betas
It's not a beta, it's the final version.
