[Bug 50477] Re: Please backport newer rhythmbox todapper-backports

[Matthew Nicholson]

thats exactly what i expected. thanks.

and yes, i found teh same with pbuilder, however, i have not dugg into
the config, and was not sure if there was a way to add additional repos
(like the backports, for packages that depend on backported packages)
etc.
On Tue, 2006-06-27 at 15:53 -0400, John Dong wrote:
> 
> 
> On 6/27/06, sjoeboo <sjoeboo at sjoeboo.com> wrote: 
>         
>         i've had no problems with these. however, i have one question,
>         any chance we can enable the ipod-writing?
>         (--enable-ipod-wirting flag to configure) i've had no problems
>         with it at all. i know is "experimental", but, so is tag
>         writing, and we build with that flag. it only allows manual
>         sync (ie: drag tracks/albums/artists over to you ipod, and
>         they are transfered and added to the db) which, is the only
>         way i ever sync my ipod anyways.... 
>         
>         just an idea though.
>         
>         matt
>  
> No, not at the Backports level. We build from Edgy sources unmodified.
> There is now a mechanism for manually uploading modified sources
> through a core dev, but that is to be used only in emergency
> circumstances.
>  
> You can try requesting this in the Ubuntu rhythmbox source package and
> see where you get...
> 
>         ps: i was trying to do a "regular" backport of this last
>         night, however the source wasn't found in edgy, because, after
>         checking launch pad, it seemed the edgy build of rhythmbox
>         failed for some reason. i got it built with pbuilder, much the
>         same way i assume john got it built. today the sources were
>         uploaded it seems, and I got a working build in my chroot
>         using the good old ubp-build.py script. which one is prefered?
>         downloading the .dsc etc and using pbuilder, or using
>         ubp-build.py in a chroot with all the right apt sources etc?
>  
> I am now using pbuilder, as it works flawlessly enough to be
> acceptable, especially since I made some hardware upgrades and
> filesystem tweaks so that its performance is now acceptable on my
> machines. I did not enjoy pbuilder when I started out using
> Warty/Hoary backports.
>  
> Either method of compiling backports is acceptable, but in the latter
> YOU are responsible for keeping that chroot free of contamination.
> 
>         On Tue, 27 Jun 2006 15:37:02 -0400, "John Dong"
>         <jdong at ubuntu.com> wrote:
>         > Likewise; I tested all the aspects of rhythmbox
>         functionality that I could
>         > think of... though being a GNOME program and all, there
>         really are none :D
>         >
>         > I think this is good to go. 
>         >
>         >
>         > On 6/27/06, Mike Basinger <mike.basinger at gmail.com> wrote:
>         >>
>         >> The packages are working fine for me.
>         >>
>         >> -- 
>         >> Mike Basinger
>         >> mike.basinger at gmail.com
>         >> http://www.mikesplanet.net
>         >>
>         >> --
>         >> ubuntu-backports mailing list 
>         >> ubuntu-backports at lists.ubuntu.com
>         >> https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-backports
>         >>
>         >>
>         >>
>         >
>         >
>         --
>         Matthew Nicholson
>         sjoeboo at sjoeboo.com
>         sjoeboo.com
>         
>         
>         --
>         ubuntu-backports mailing list 
>         ubuntu-backports at lists.ubuntu.com
>         https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-backports
> 
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 191 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
Url : https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/ubuntu-backports/attachments/20060627/c0835946/attachment.pgp