Brasero on FreeBSD
mezz7 at cox.net
Tue Jan 1 14:33:12 PST 2008
On Tue, 01 Jan 2008 15:27:46 -0600, Chuck Robey <chuckr at chuckr.org> wrote:
> On Tuesday 01 January 2008 04:13:14 pm Jeremy Messenger wrote:
>> On Tue, 01 Jan 2008 14:28:34 -0600, Chuck Robey <chuckr at chuckr.org>
>> > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>> > Hash: SHA1
>> > Joe Marcus Clarke wrote:
>> >> On Tue, 2008-01-01 at 03:52 +0000, Luis Medinas wrote:
>> >>> Hi
>> >>> As a co-maintainer of Brasero i'm tempted to ask why FreeBSD hasn't
>> >>> brasero 0.7.0 on the ports tree. None of us are using FreeBSD sadly
>> >>> but we can work together to make it work better for FreeBSD if it
>> >>> isn't working atm. Please bump brasero.
>> >> First, this is very encouraging. I love it when maintainers make an
>> >> effort to help port their application to another platform. Thank
>> >> Now for the bad news. We have quite a few users that want to use
>> >> brasero on FreeBSD, but we haven't had anyone step up to fix the
>> >> problems. Admittedly, I offered to look into this a while ago, but
>> >> fell behind with non-FreeBSD work, and the FreeBSD hal port update.
>> >> Here's were we stand with brasero now:
>> >> http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/query-pr.cgi?pr=ports/115240 : This looks
>> >> like a problem with brasero overriding PATH for a Linux-centric
>> >> environment. mkisofs is found in /usr/local/bin on FreeBSD.
>> >> Admittedly, I have not looked into the brasero code to determine if
>> >> this is the case, or if this problem is still relevant in 0.7.0.
>> >> http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/query-pr.cgi?pr=ports/117364 : This is a
>> >> bit nastier. FreeBSD's cdrecord only supports the legacy
>> >> bus,target,lun notation. Our HAL exports this address via the
>> >> block.freebsd.cam_path property, and I hacked nautilus-cd-burner to
>> >> support this property on FreeBSD.
>> >> If you have suggestions on these problems, I would be happy to get
>> >> brasero up to 0.7.0 and working properly on FreeBSD.
>> > I didn't know what brasero was, so I wewnt to their website. I found
>> > that
>> > the version number for their stable release is 0.5.2, while I see the
>> > ports
>> Which website? In the http://www.gnome.org/projects/brasero/ shows that
>> 0.7.x is stable release.
> Hmm, I see. I was getting ready to jump on you for not reading
> but when I looked at the home page of the page I *had* been using, I saw
> totally differnt answer. I'll give you both of them and maybe you'll see
> what I mean:
> (look at the download section on the right hand side, where it specifies
> 0.5.2 as the stable one)
> (this is the home page, it's probably what you used, and it says 0.7.0 at
> nearly the same point as the other referenced page).
> Well, this explains (perhaps) why the port wasn't updated: the port
> author *could have* been fooled as I was.
We (FreeBSD GNOME Team) were not fool by this. We knew that we should
update brasero to 0.6.x that time when it was stable release. Most of us
are busy and brasero seems to be low priority in the plates. The other of
us don't know C/SCSI.
Let's bring this topic back, shall we? ;-)
> Just so I either feel better, or can
> castigate myself tonight, am I right, does that first page say what I
> it did, or am I just going nuts?
>> > is at 0.5.1. Is it normal, so something like gnome utils (that so
>> > use) to follow the most recent version, of to follow the most recent
>> > *stable* version? Note I'm not being fascetious, I really don't know
>> > the
>> Yeah, we normal do that. If we add development version then it would be
>> brasero-devel if we are interest to maintain it. Most of time we add in
>> MC CVS instead do *-devel unless it really need to be *-devel if it's
>> fit in GNOME release.
>> > answer, but maybe, if one would use the x11/gnome port as a guide,
>> > well, it's running at version 2.20.2, which I think (unless I misread
>> > their website) is their stable release ... but they didn't actually
>> > seem to make
>> > any distinction on that site, current versus stable. I still don't
>> > know, but I think that brasero shouldn't just be automatically be
>> > updated to the
>> > current version without deciding that, right?
>> > Or, should the port have a second one, a brasero-current, added? I
>> > know that either way, a update is needed, but that needed to be looked
>> > at, right?
>> >> Joe
>> > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
>> > Version: GnuPG v2.0.4 (FreeBSD)
>> > Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
>> > iD8DBQFHeqJyz62J6PPcoOkRAvI+AJ4vti44pUrrT0XUlkAX4VeMIWb96gCeOmZV
>> > S0DuBM4q/Ar9Z1cDxnaDF/k=
>> > =uMoU
>> > -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
mezz7 at cox.net - mezz at FreeBSD.org
FreeBSD GNOME Team - FreeBSD Multimedia Hat (ports, not src)
http://www.FreeBSD.org/gnome/ - gnome at FreeBSD.org
http://wiki.freebsd.org/multimedia - multimedia at FreeBSD.org
More information about the freebsd-gnome