Thank you for your assistance.

However, I must say that, as a newbie, I find your comments about CentOS being inappropriate for some kinds of application a little odd. Why should an application built for Linux not work on a distribution of Linux?

As an aside, before attempting to install CentOS, my first choice was Ubuntu. But their installer kept hanging somewhere in the middle of the installation process, so I decided that was out. So Ubuntu did not impress me as an option.

In any case, I searched around for which build would be most appropriate for me, and nowhere did I come across information that clearly said to me "You really can't or shouldn't run this kind of software on this build". Different distributions came with different philosophies, prices, and advantages. But if any one of them could not run a Linux application, then isn't that build broken?

Dave

Dave Gutteridge dave@tokyocomedy.com wrote:

Why should an application built for Linux not work on a distribution of Linux?

If it is a binary, it could be many things. It could be lack of a specific library, library version, GCC version, file system layout (although FHS/LSB addresses much of this), etc...

As an aside, before attempting to install CentOS, my first choice was Ubutu. But their installer kept hanging somewhere in the middle of the installation process, so I decided that was out. So Ubuntu did not impress me as an option.

Not to add to this meta-discussion, but forming an opinion of a distribution based on its installer is really narrowminded. Most people get Windows and other OSes pre-installed, so Linux reviews should focus on a pre-installed Linux distribution.

In any case, I searched around for which build would be most appropriate for me, and nowhere did I come across information that clearly said to me "You really can't or shouldn't run this kind of software on this build". Different distributions came with different philosophies,

Ironically, and despite the majority of common opinions, I believe most "packages" distros to be very, very similar. Anything with a Debian or Fedora-base is developed very similarly, and even SuSE is increasingly moving to a Fedora-like approach (and much of the release model has been the same with Red Hat for awhile now). Installers and package management is only where they slightly differ, and even those concepts are quite overlapping these days.

prices,

??? Linux is free. Now if you mean services and SLAs, yes, that's different.

and advantages. But if any one of them could not run a Linux application, then isn't that build broken?

Application Binary Interface (ABI) compatibility is why I carefully monitor each new Fedora Core release, just like I did Red Hat Linux prior.

On Mon, 2005-08-22 at 11:46 +0900, Dave Gutteridge wrote:

Anyway, to keep this on focus with CentOS, if CentOS is designed more to be a "server", and "desktop questions" are beyond the scope of this list, then why did the installer offer me "personal use", "workstation", and other varieties of installation other than "server"?

More to the point, am I being illogical by assuming that if I have a distribution of Linux, and I go to a web page that offers Linux software, that I would assume that I can download and run it? Why am I running Linux if I can't run Linux applications?

Well, that's kinda like saying "I run windows, can't I go to any page that offers windows software".

There are many flavors of Linux, and certain apps make certain assumptions about the environment they are built for. If you run Windows 9x or NT you will find that some applications won't work on that version of windows. The same is true of Windows XP, 2000, and Vista ... some apps won't run on those platforms either because of the expectations of the application.

Also Linux is a pretty fast moving target for some things because of the rate that the UI, compilers and other technology is evolving.

Are distributions really different enough that one can't run some applications and another can't run others? Wouldn't that be kind of insane? I mean, I can understand a specialty build that has clear warnings on it that it is built for some specific platform or purpose. But why does CentOS have a desktop (two, in fact) if it's not designed to handle "desktop" problems?

In a way CentOS's closest windows cousin is Windows 2000 ... good for corporate desktops, but not good for multi-media or having the most cutting-edge features.

CentOS and it's relatives are somewhat hobbled by that fact that they hark from a part of the world where patents of software algorithms are recognized and so are not allowed to distribute encumbered technology. Such things like DVD decrypting software, MP3 processing, MPEG 2 & 4 and many other things mostly related to multi-media at this point would be illegal to distribute in the USA and a few other countries.

Some other distros that hark from other parts of the world will include such things and so may be better suited for home desktop use.

Regards, Paul

On Mon, 2005-08-22 at 11:46 +0900, Dave Gutteridge wrote:

What I found as a newbie was that the effort of trying to get it to install far outweighed the effort of considering other Linux distributions.

I wanted to point out the fact that one needs to remember that installation makes up 0% of using Linux.

Perhaps I misunderstood something along the way. What I thought was the case was that while Linux is free, some distributions aren't.

There are a few distros out there that are still trying to cater to the pricing of volume, commercial distros. They are largely failing.

Red Hat was smart, they got out of it period. It's likely never to be profitable, even if Linux had a 50% share.

On 8/22/05, Dave Gutteridge dave@tokyocomedy.com wrote:

...

I wanted to point out the fact that one needs to remember that installation makes up 0% of using Linux.

That's kind of like saying turning on the ignition is 0% of driving the car.

It doesn't matter how smooth a ride it is if I can't get it started.

No it's the difference between a stock, factory installed, engine and a new racing engine.

No one compares the engines and by starting out on how to install the engine.

On the other had if you never put a new engine in you need to determine what it takes to install it. The differences between engines and between cars can make it quite a task.

At least the linux distros come with installers that know the basics, and take basic commands to modify their installation.

So the analogy is correct that usability is not related to installation.

However a little FAQ that is distro neutral might be handy in the most common installation failures fixes, like using "nodma."

Dave Gutteridge dave@tokyocomedy.com wrote:

So, to use your analogy, I'm sitting in the car with the souped up engine, and it won't start, and I'm surrounded by mechanics saying "Yeah, but if it did run, it would be better."

Again, poor analogy. You don't install Linux everytime you want to use it. You don't mod it everytime you want to use it.

A better analogy is that you have a kit car and you have to build it. With the Ubuntu instructions, you couldn't figure it out from the parts you had. With the CentOS instructions, you could.

99.9% of users don't get a kit car, they get the car pre-built. So all they do is start it up. I.e., all you do is boot it up.

Extremely poor analogy that is totally inapplicable.

This war of analogies is getting a little silly, but you're still not convincing me. No, one doesn't build the car every time they drive it. But they will never drive it if it never got built.

You can say that "users" get a pre-built car every time or whatever, but so what? I'm not "users" in general. I am a specific user who already has a computer that I want to us. When it comes to Ubuntu, there were no pre-built options available to me. The only way I can get Ubuntu on my system is to use the install discs available from them (or from mirror sites). They didn't work. I only have one computer, so what does it matter if other computers or other users have pre-built options?

My only option in this instance is the Ubuntu installer. Which didn't work.

So my analogy, that a car that does not get built does not get driven is perfectly applicable.... to me.

Dave

On Mon, 2005-08-22 at 11:01 +0900, Dave Gutteridge wrote:

Thank you for your assistance.

However, I must say that, as a newbie, I find your comments about CentOS being inappropriate for some kinds of application a little odd. Why should an application built for Linux not work on a distribution of Linux?

Now, here is a misconception.

Items designed for Windows 95 don't always work on Windows XP or Windows 2003 server.

Items built for Mandriva might not work on Redhat. Items built for CentOS-3 might not work on CentOS-4.

Linux is really just the kernel ... a distribution contains many things on top of the linux kernel.

Things like shared libraries (shared system files that all other packages use to run ... very similar to system .dll files in Windows) Shared libraries usually in /lib, /usr/lib, and /usr/local/lib. Some shared libraries are in other places ... like the X stuff.

Certain RPM packages are compiled against a certain version of shared libraries, and they may not (probably won't) work against other versions (especially earlier versions, and maybe later versions too) of the shared library.

If you upgrade shared libraries (like what happens if you upgrade KDE from 3.3 to 3.4, or when installing other packages from outside the base centos repos) then you might make some programs/packages in CentOS 4 no longer function. (They might call functions that are removed or renamed in newer shared libraries).

If you understand what shared libraries do, it might be possible to change the affected programs (or the shared libraries) to get them to work in both cases, but initially you will probably beak something ... just like you would if you upgraded a bunch of DLL files on Windows NT 3.51 server to Windows 2003 Server.

In any case, I searched around for which build would be most appropriate for me, and nowhere did I come across information that clearly said to me "You really can't or shouldn't run this kind of software on this build". Different distributions came with different philosophies, prices, and advantages.

But, because of the release cycle and support lifetime, some distributions are better able to support certain things. Multimedia editing, for example, is going to require always upgrading your platform to newer versions of X, KDE, GNOME. CentOS does not do that within a release. Gentoo, on the other hand, doesn't really upgrade at all. You install it once ... and you upgrade forever when a new package comes out. If Gnome 2.10 is considered stable, it can be installed (and you can rebuild any other programs that need the new shared libraries). It is always a moving target where you can get the latest and greatest software.

I split this off to answer it separately ...

But if any one of them could not run a Linux application, then isn't that build broken?

No, not at all. Linux is the kernel ... there are 2.0, 2.2, 2.4 and 2.6 kernels, and many things are supported in one of those and not in the others.

---------------- CentOS is an Enterprise class distribution. That means it is designed to be stable, but not necessarily have all the latest and greatest features. Major versions are released on long (12-18 month) cycles (instead of 6 month cycles for non-enterprise distros). The support lifetime is 7 years (instead of 1-2 years for non-enterprise distros) ... CentOS-2 has some very old packages that still get security updates, but that are not going to be upgraded (like apache 1.3.x, XFree86 4.1.x, gnome 1.4.x, kde 2.2.x, etc.). If you were to try and install k3b (that requires at least kde 3.2 libraries) you will break everything that comes with CentOS-2 and needs the KDE 2.2 libraries and that was all built to work together.

For the major items, CentOS is never going to upgrade. For example CentOS-3 has Gnome 2.2.x and KDE 3.1.x ... it will stay gnome 2.2.x and KDE 3.1.x until it retires in 2010. If something was released in gnome 2.8.x, it is not going to be available for CentOS-3 without taking a risk that you will break compatibility with installed programs.

So, CentOS is designed to be installed and provide what it provides ... a long term, stable, enterprise distro with a long release cycle (about 18 months) and a long support cycle (7 years). By the time CentOS-5.x is released (probably around September 2006), items in CentOS-3.x will be very dated, items in CentOS-4.x will be fairly dated, and items in CentOS-2.x will be prehistoric :)

But, if you installed an Application on a CentOS-2 server and you have CentOS-2 installed on 500 workstations that need to use that application, it will still work great until May 31, 2009 (when CentOS-2 goes away). You will be able to get updates for those workstations and the server until that point ... although, you will not be able to burn DVDs from them.

Hopefully this makes sense.

On Monday 22 August 2005 07:05 am, Dave Gutteridge wrote: I've been using centos3 and centos4 with transcode, k3b, xine, mplayer and yes even dvd::rip for a long time without any issues. Shoot me a line off list and I'll help you get this stuff working. Like has been mentioned before on this list centos is really geared toward the server market (stability) and when you load all these multimedia apps you give up some of that because of the bleeding edge technology put into all the encoding/decoding apps.

Tim

(Thread moved over from "Has anyone got dvd::rip to work in CentOS?")

...

Items designed for Windows 95 don't always work on Windows XP or Windows 2003 server.

Yes, but I'm not sure that analogy really represents the situation I'm speaking of with Linux. Items designed in the past may not work with current technologies. That's not a hard concept to grasp, the same way I don't expect my CD player to play casette tapes.

I'm not talking about diffeences in release times. I'm not surprised, nor bothered, that perhaps some software written for Linux kernel 2.4 doesn't work on 2.6.

But assuming two different distros have the 2.6 kernel, then why shouldn't they both be capable of running the same software?

I must admit that partly I'm questioning this because I'm a little annoyed. The first Linux distro I tried was Fedora, and only afterwards was it clearly explained that it's a sort of "permanent beta", where stability was not guarunteed. I'm sorry, but I read the Fedora web site carefully, and it does not explain clearly what it is. I thought it was a reasonable candidate for consumer use.

But then someone recomended CentOS, because it's more stable. No one said "... but it's really designed more for being a server.". Nothing was said along those lines.

Now, after spending weeks getting things like Japanese support, my Palm Pilot to work, Gnome configured, and many other trials and errors, *now*, when I want to get a DVD writing program, people are saying "Oh, well, really CentOS is not really all that good for those kinds of purposes". Where was this advice before?

In fact, I'm looking at the CentOS web site now, and in it's "Goals" section it says, among other things:

• easy maintenance
• friendly environment for users and package maintainers

Noticibly lacking is anything saying "a server oriented OS", or "not really intended to run consumer level software". Where was I supposed to come to understand that CentOS was not only a "stable enterprise class OS" but also limited in exactly how many applications it would be able to accomodate?

So I'm sorry if I'm sounding like a whiner at this point, but if I have to change to another distro and again go through all the growing pains of learning how to use it as well I think I might run back to Windows world. I mean, I've come to really like Linux for a lot of reasons, but I'm getting a little tired of the "this Linux for that, that Linux for this" confusion that only hardened Linux gurus can sort out.

Dave _______________________________________________ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

On Monday 22 August 2005 07:37 am, Dave Gutteridge wrote:

...

I've been using centos3 and centos4 with transcode, k3b, xine, mplayer and yes even dvd::rip for a long time without any issues. Shoot me a line off list and I'll help you get this stuff working.

Thank you for your help.

I hope others will permit this discussion to continue on-list. Not just because of the possibility that others may be interested, but because I like the security of knowing this discussion is being stored in an archive somewhere in case I have a cataclysm on my machine and lose my own records.

In any case, if you would be willing to share simply how you got dvd::rip working, that would be a great start. Was it an RPM install or using a tarball?

Tarball is best. Always gives you the most control. RPM is simpler, but you are at the mercy of the package maintainer's choice of configure options. Just use yum if you choose the later. For centos3 add freshrpm.net FC1 repo info to your yum.conf.

[freshrpms] name=Fedora Core 1 - Freshrpms baseurl=http://ayo.freshrpms.net/fedora/linux/1/$basearch/freshrpms/ mirrorlist=http://ayo.freshrpms.net/fedora/linux/1/mirrors-freshrpms gpgcheck=1 You will have to import the freshrpms gpg key of course if you enable the gpgcheck as I have done.

For centos4 create a freshrpm.net FC3 repo.

Here's an example of what happens when you try to install dvd::rip on a centos3.5 desktop using the freshrpms FC1 repository...

yum install perl-Video-DVDRip

Resolving dependencies ...Dependencies resolved I will do the following: [install: perl-Video-DVDRip 0.50.18-1.1.fc1.fr.i386] I will install/upgrade these to satisfy the dependencies: [deps: xvidcore 1.0.2-1.1.fc1.fr.i386] [deps: libfame 0.9.1-1.fr.i386] [deps: libdv 0.102-1.1.fc1.fr.i386] [deps: vcdimager 0.7.14-4.1.fc1.fr.i386] [deps: mjpegtools 1.6.2-1.fr.i386] [deps: transcode 0.6.12-3.1.fc1.fr.i386] [deps: a52dec 0.7.4-5.fr.i386] [deps: libavc1394 0.4.1-2.fr.i386] [deps: gtkglarea 1.2.2-16.i386] [deps: ogmtools 1.4.1-1.1.fc1.fr.i386] [deps: libquicktime 0.9.3-1.1.fc1.fr.i586] [deps: libdvdread 0.9.4-4.fr.i386] [deps: subtitleripper 0.3.2-1.fr.i386] [deps: lame 3.96.1-1.1.fc1.fr.i386] [deps: libglade 1:0.17-12.1.i386] [deps: libdvdcss 1.2.8-2.fr.i386] [deps: lzo 1.08-3.fr.i386] [deps: Gtk-Perl 0.7008-31.i386]

You will notice that the version of dvd::rip is 0.50.18 not the latest 0.52.6. I don't have any centos4 desktops at the moment to test on or I would show you the output for that...

Hope this helps.

Tim

Dave

---

CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

On Monday 22 August 2005 08:30 am, Karanbir Singh wrote:

Timothy wrote:

...

On Monday 22 August 2005 07:37 am, Dave Gutteridge wrote:

...

In any case, if you would be willing to share simply how you got dvd::rip working, that would be a great start. Was it an RPM install or using a tarball?

Tarball is best. Always gives you the most control. RPM is simpler, but you

I disagree, a Tarball also gives you no reliable upgrade / update options. If you have a problem with the way .rpm was built, grab the src.rpm and rebuild to suit yourself. Going tarball should be last resort.

...

For centos4 create a freshrpm.net FC3 repo.

hummmm, I've had way too many issues with FC repo's on EL Distro's that I no longer consider that to be a real option - nothing for a newbie who dosent understand repo-management completely.

...

yum install perl-Video-DVDRip

Resolving dependencies ...Dependencies resolved I will do the following: [install: perl-Video-DVDRip 0.50.18-1.1.fc1.fr.i386] I will install/upgrade these to satisfy the dependencies: [deps: xvidcore 1.0.2-1.1.fc1.fr.i386] [deps: libfame 0.9.1-1.fr.i386] [deps: libdv 0.102-1.1.fc1.fr.i386] [deps: vcdimager 0.7.14-4.1.fc1.fr.i386] [deps: mjpegtools 1.6.2-1.fr.i386] [deps: transcode 0.6.12-3.1.fc1.fr.i386] [deps: a52dec 0.7.4-5.fr.i386] [deps: libavc1394 0.4.1-2.fr.i386] [deps: gtkglarea 1.2.2-16.i386] [deps: ogmtools 1.4.1-1.1.fc1.fr.i386] [deps: libquicktime 0.9.3-1.1.fc1.fr.i586] [deps: libdvdread 0.9.4-4.fr.i386] [deps: subtitleripper 0.3.2-1.fr.i386] [deps: lame 3.96.1-1.1.fc1.fr.i386] [deps: libglade 1:0.17-12.1.i386] [deps: libdvdcss 1.2.8-2.fr.i386] [deps: lzo 1.08-3.fr.i386] [deps: Gtk-Perl 0.7008-31.i386]

You will notice that the version of dvd::rip is 0.50.18 not the latest 0.52.6.

Wait a minute. Have you actually ever tried this on a CentOS4 machine ?

I don't use the dag repositories via yum anymore. The 'rf' packages have too many issues.

Dag has dvd-rip in his repository, but did not build for EL4 the last time he ran through a build cycle. I'll look at the buildlogs later in the day today and see what the issue really was.

If you can wait for a _day_ then getting it from dag's repo is going to be the best option.

• K

On Monday 22 August 2005 08:42 am, Karanbir Singh wrote:

Timothy wrote:

...

On Monday 22 August 2005 08:30 am, Karanbir Singh wrote:

...

Wait a minute. Have you actually ever tried this on a CentOS4 machine ?

I don't use the dag repositories via yum anymore. The 'rf' packages have too many issues.

Issues Like what ?

segfaults mostly. I used to use his repository almost exclusively. Maybe most of this is fixed now. I would pull mostly multimedia apps (transcode, avifile, ffmpeg, etc) and mozilla-plugins. Sorry I can't really expand on this because it has been a while. I personally use slackware 10.1 on my i386 desktops now.

On Monday 22 August 2005 11:48 am, Lamar Owen wrote:

On Monday 22 August 2005 10:17, Timothy wrote:

...

segfaults mostly. I used to use his repository almost exclusively. Maybe most of this is fixed now. I would pull mostly multimedia apps (transcode, avifile, ffmpeg, etc) and mozilla-plugins. Sorry I can't really expand on this because it has been a while. I personally use slackware 10.1 on my i386 desktops now.

Then just exactly why are you giving advice on how to work with current CentOS, if you aren't using it? This is crazy.

I use CentOS 3.5 on a dozen plus servers. I love it. Just because I use a different distro on my personal desktops doesn't mean I haven't done exactly what David is trying to do. I wouldn't be on this list if I didn't think I had something to offer back to the CentOS community. I have CentOS 4.1 installed on one of my boss's desktops. Anyone in my shop can install FC3, FC4, CentOS3.5, CentOS4.1 and even cAos 2.1 from a YAM server along with rsync'd updates, dag and atrpms repositories.

On Monday 22 August 2005 12:53 pm, Dag Wieers wrote:

On Mon, 22 Aug 2005, Timothy wrote:

...

On Monday 22 August 2005 08:42 am, Karanbir Singh wrote:

...

Timothy wrote:

...

On Monday 22 August 2005 08:30 am, Karanbir Singh wrote:

...

Wait a minute. Have you actually ever tried this on a CentOS4 machine ?

I don't use the dag repositories via yum anymore. The 'rf' packages have too many issues.

Issues Like what ?

segfaults mostly. I used to use his repository almost exclusively. Maybe most of this is fixed now. I would pull mostly multimedia apps (transcode, avifile, ffmpeg, etc) and mozilla-plugins. Sorry I can't really expand on this because it has been a while. I personally use slackware 10.1 on my i386 desktops now.

You know, it's funny, because FreshRPMS and RPMforge are actually building the same packages. So the segfaults most likely happened with FreshRPMS too (if you actually tried the same version, which you probably didn't because you were using an old FC1 repository that by mere luck worked for you).

There have been problems with transcode/dvd:rip that were caused by NPTL and needed workarounds (environment variables) to make it work. You could have looked at the freshrpms mailinglist or at least reported the problems so we could look at it (see if we could reproduce it) or pointed to you at a solution.

Instead you opted to be pretty useless to the community, even more ill-advising people. Know that for every working piece of Open Source software people dedicate time to get things right, that's not only true for my packages, but for every piece of OSS software. And if you don't even bother to provide valuable feedback, you don't have any reason to complain.

I'll shutup now. I'm obviously an idiot. Maybe God will give me brain someday? Apologies, apologies, apologies.

If slackware works well for you, than that's despite of your input I bet.

So if you wonder if you pissed me off, yes you did :)

Kind regards, -- dag wieers, dag@wieers.com, http://dag.wieers.com/ -- [all I want is a warm bed and a kind word and unlimited power] _______________________________________________ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

On Mon, 22 Aug 2005, Timothy wrote:

On Monday 22 August 2005 12:53 pm, Dag Wieers wrote:

...

So if you wonder if you pissed me off, yes you did :)

I never intended to mislead or give ill-advised info. I obviously owe you a personal apology. I'm sorry! I was only trying to help. I failed miserably.

Don't be sorry. You haven't been the first, and certainly aren't going to be the last. And most of what I vented here was not specifically about you but my frustration with the general problem.

I often read about a problem that was not reported to me. People are very good at fixing a problem for themselves but don't think about the bigger picture.

If you fix it yourself, you've helped yourself. If you report it, you fix it for everyone else. (including yourself the next time)

Don't take it too hard, if the message got through to other people, you've actually helped the cause indirectly :)

Kind regards, -- dag wieers, dag@wieers.com, http://dag.wieers.com/ -- [all I want is a warm bed and a kind word and unlimited power]

I added the Freshrpms repository to my yum.conf file. Actually, when I went looking for that repository before, I thought I read on the Dag site that Dag and freshrpms were merged. Anyway, I added it, and ran the program. At first it said that it "conflicted" with transcode, so I removed transcode and tried the yum install again.

And here's what happened:

[root@localhost ~]# yum install perl-Video-DVDRip Setting up Install Process Setting up Repos addons 100% |=========================| 951 B 00:00 kbs-CentOS-Extras 100% |=========================| 951 B 00:00 kbs-CentOS-Misc 100% |=========================| 951 B 00:00 update 100% |=========================| 951 B 00:00 dag 100% |=========================| 1.1 kB 00:00 base 100% |=========================| 1.1 kB 00:00 freshrpms 100% |=========================| 951 B 00:00 extras 100% |=========================| 1.1 kB 00:00 Reading repository metadata in from local files kbs-CentOS: ################################################## 1210/1210 kbs-CentOS: ################################################## 60/60 update : ################################################## 109/109 dag : ################################################## 2483/2483 base : ################################################## 1406/1406 freshrpms : ################################################## 510/510 extras : ################################################## 32/32 Excluding Packages in global exclude list Finished Parsing package install arguments Resolving Dependencies --> Populating transaction set with selected packages. Please wait. ---> Package perl-Video-DVDRip.i386 0:0.50.18-1.1.fc1.fr set to be updated --> Running transaction check --> Processing Dependency: subtitleripper for package: perl-Video-DVDRip --> Processing Dependency: vcdimager for package: perl-Video-DVDRip --> Processing Dependency: ogmtools for package: perl-Video-DVDRip --> Processing Dependency: transcode >= 0.6.3 for package: perl-Video-DVDRip --> Processing Dependency: Gtk-Perl for package: perl-Video-DVDRip --> Restarting Dependency Resolution with new changes. --> Populating transaction set with selected packages. Please wait. ---> Package vcdimager.i386 0:0.7.14-4.2.el4.rf set to be updated ---> Package Gtk-Perl.i386 0:0.7008-37 set to be updated ---> Package subtitleripper.i386 0:0.3.4-1.2.el4.rf set to be updated ---> Downloading header for transcode to pack into transaction set. transcode-1.0.0-1.2.el4.r 100% |=========================| 36 kB 00:00 ---> Package transcode.i386 0:1.0.0-1.2.el4.rf set to be updated ---> Package ogmtools.i386 0:1.5-1.2.el4.rf set to be updated --> Running transaction check --> Processing Conflict: transcode conflicts perl-Video-DVDRip < 0.51.2 --> Finished Dependency Resolution Error: transcode conflicts with perl-Video-DVDRip < 0.51.2

Umm... I thought I just removed transcode. Or does this mean that DVD-rip conflicts with the transcode on the server?

Dave

Timothy timothy@jupiter.stcl.edu wrote:

Try turning off the dag repository and using only the freshrpms and maybe vice-versa if that doesn't work.

<chorus> Oh repo-hell ... oh repo-hell ... Oh how lovely are your dist-tags?

I changed my conf, and I got some spunk. I changed it again, now my system's junk. </chorus>

Timothy timothy@jupiter.stcl.edu wrote:

That's good!

I think the "killer app" in the RPM world would be a combination "portspec" program / source tree that could pull SPEC files from RPMForge, the corresponding source tarballs/patches for them, and resolve any pre-built/pre-existing dependencies against YUM, building only what is necessary.

On Mon, 2005-08-22 at 20:00 +0200, Dag Wieers wrote:

But oh so wrong. The disttags should have been you first clue and all you can do is make fun of them :) If even disttags can't make people see the light, then I don't know what can.

I actually agree with Dag here ... you really should not use packages built for one distro on another one.

Dag has many packages that work with EL4, and we are building some that he doesn't have in extras and centosplus.

We will take a look and see if we can get some kind of dvd ripper working ... but please don't break a perfectly good enterprise level system. Security updates and package management are both very important for long term stability of your linux distro.

On Mon, 2005-08-22 at 20:43 +0200, Dag Wieers wrote:

I'm reiterating here that every cooperation between extras/centosplus and RPMforge is welcome. If the CentOS team wants to maintain their own RPMforge rebuild, or like to add as much from their packages into RPMforge, all that is possible. There are many ways we could make each others life easier and I think we could use a lot of experience from the CentOS team.

I was going to bring this up on the RPMForge list (which I just joined), but I'm wondering what information/advocacy could be spread on the RPMForge efforts.

I.e., the editorial calendar of Sys Admin and UNIX Review are still quite open for copy, and if there is some sound advice to bringing all repositories into unison with a sound set of guidelines based on RPMForge's efforts, I'm all for promoting it.

P.S. Back to the OP's topic... Dave, if you're still listening and having problems:

Still listening and still having problems. If I do the same command that you did, you can see perl-Video-DVDRip is not installed: [root@localhost ~]# rpm -q perl-Video-DVDRip transcode xine mplayer tvtime vcdimager videolan-client subtitleripper ogle libdvdread lame libcddb libcdio package perl-Video-DVDRip is not installed transcode-1.0.0-1.2.el4.rf xine-0.99.4-1.2.el4.rf mplayer-1.0-0.17.pre7.2.el4.rf tvtime-0.99-1.2.el4.rf vcdimager-0.7.14-4.2.el4.rf videolan-client-0.8.1-3.2.el4.rf subtitleripper-0.3.4-1.2.el4.rf ogle-0.9.2-4.2.el4.rf libdvdread-0.9.4-6.2.el4.rf lame-3.96.1-2.2.el4.rf libcddb-1.2.0-3.1.el4.kb libcdio-0.75-3.1.el4.kb

And when I do try to install it with YUM: --> Running transaction check --> Processing Conflict: transcode conflicts perl-Video-DVDRip < 0.51.2 --> Finished Dependency Resolution Error: transcode conflicts with perl-Video-DVDRip < 0.51.2

Dave

if you have kbs-CentOS-Misc enabled.. yum install perl-Video-DVDRip You will also need kbs-CentOS-Extras and Dag's repo enabled ( it will pull depends from both of these - 22 for me ).

Um... that's weird. I've had Dag's repo and CentOS-Extras from the start, and literally ten minutes ago I couldn't download DVDRip with YUM. And then, just now I tried again, just to veridy I had those repositories... and DVDRip installed. Same command, ten minutes apart, no changes, and suddenly it works. Did someone change something on the repositories.

Umm... I guess this is solved then. Thanks fo all the help and advice!

Thanks

On Mon, 2005-08-22 at 14:40 -0500, Bryan J. Smith wrote:

On Mon, 2005-08-22 at 20:00 +0200, Dag Wieers wrote:

...

But oh so wrong. The disttags should have been you first clue and all you can do is make fun of them :) If even disttags can't make people see the light, then I don't know what can.

Dag, I hope you know I was making a joke. I was basically advocating _not_ flip-flopping repos around so carelessly, as it seemed like the person who said to change FreshRPMS.NET and your repository until it worked.

I haven't used FreshRPMS.NET directly since I discovered you had everything it had and more, and that was a long time ago. I pretty much only enable your distro beyond the FE/Livna (for FC) and CentOS Plus/Extras (for RHEL/CentOS).

---- fwiw...

I have used Dag's repo for RHEL 3 & 4 extensively.

I tend to use smartpm for Fedora which will pick from a number of the rpmforge distributions.

I stopped using Livna early in FC-2 when I found the other repos

Craig

Try turning off the dag repository and using only the freshrpms and maybe vice-versa if that doesn't work.

Without the Dag repository, I get this error: Error: Missing Dependency: libMagick-5.5.6-Q16.so.0 is needed by package transcode Error: Missing Dependency: libpbm.so.9 is needed by package subtitleripper Error: Missing Dependency: libppm.so.9 is needed by package subtitleripper

Without the freshrpms repository, I get the same error as I did before, where transcode conflicts.

Anything else I can try?

Dave

Dave Gutteridge wrote:

Without the Dag repository, I get this error: Error: Missing Dependency: libMagick-5.5.6-Q16.so.0 is needed by package transcode Error: Missing Dependency: libpbm.so.9 is needed by package subtitleripper Error: Missing Dependency: libppm.so.9 is needed by package subtitleripper

Without the freshrpms repository, I get the same error as I did before, where transcode conflicts.

Anything else I can try?

Dave,

How much have you deviated from the CentOS 4 baseline?

If we are talking about the same machine you've been working on, I recall you've done the following (not necessarily in that order): 1. Installed CentOS 2. Installed the kde.org RPMs so you could get KDE 3.4 (which is not part of CentOS) 3. Used some yum repositories designed for Fedora Core

Installing a new version of KDE also changes many of the libraries that other apps depend on. Installing binaries from a Fedora Core repository may upgrade many of your libraries further as yum tries to "help" you.

Their versions won't line up with what the CentOS/RHEL repositories (both base and third-party) are expecting, and these libraries may be incompatible with the apps contained in CentOS 4.

If you have not reinstalled since numbers 2 and 3, then your system is no longer part of the CentOS baseline and its 'maturity' (good term Bryan!) is suspect. Right now your system is bits and pieces of different distributions.

I've been down the same road, years ago, when I wanted newer software for an old version of Red Hat. It taught me the values of package management and stability.

The best way to bring it back to CentOS-4 is to reformat and reinstall, then try to solve your needs (like DVD-ripping).

Adding on applications is fine, but replacing existing applications needs to be done with great care. I usually install additional software ALONGSIDE the existing software so that the distribution still works. I install compiled software in /usr/local and create my own RPMs once I'm convinced I want to stick with a particular application/library.

If you've already reinstalled since the KDE-3.4 incident and the FC repos incident, then please disregard this advice.

--Shawn

P.S. A lot of us are telling you what to do. Please digest all of the information and do some research before making a decision.

On Mon, 22 Aug 2005, Timothy wrote:

On Monday 22 August 2005 07:37 am, Dave Gutteridge wrote:

...

In any case, if you would be willing to share simply how you got dvd::rip working, that would be a great start. Was it an RPM install or using a tarball?

Tarball is best. Always gives you the most control. RPM is simpler, but you are at the mercy of the package maintainer's choice of configure options. Just use yum if you choose the later. For centos3 add freshrpm.net FC1 repo info to your yum.conf.

*please* don't give advice like this.

tarball is NOT the best, look at the audience before you give advice like this. If you really think tarballs are the best, why are you using an RPM based distribution anyway ?

Don't use FC1 repositories for CentOS unless you want ignorant people to think RPM packages are crap. Sure it might work if you're lucky, but we want always-working solutions, not randomly-working solutions.

You will notice that the version of dvd::rip is 0.50.18 not the latest 0.52.6.

Why would that be ? Could it be because Freshrpms stopped building FC1 packages about a year ago ?

Kind regards, -- dag wieers, dag@wieers.com, http://dag.wieers.com/ -- [all I want is a warm bed and a kind word and unlimited power]

Timothy wrote:

Like has been mentioned before on this list centos is really geared toward the server market (stability) and when you load all these multimedia apps you give up some of that because of

I wouldn't say it's geared to toward the server market as much as it's geared to the business desktop or server market. I use my desktops for development and moved from Fedora to CentOS just so I wouldn't have to keep upgrading the OS just to keep current with patches. But you are right -- you can easily install many of the "bleeding edge" packages if you so desire. The only difference is that you then take on the responsibility of keeping them updated yourself.

BK

On 8/22/05, Dave Gutteridge dave@tokyocomedy.com wrote:

(Thread moved over from "Has anyone got dvd::rip to work in CentOS?")

...

Items designed for Windows 95 don't always work on Windows XP or Windows 2003 server.

Yes, but I'm not sure that analogy really represents the situation I'm speaking of with Linux. Items designed in the past may not work with current technologies. That's not a hard concept to grasp, the same way I don't expect my CD player to play casette tapes.

I'm not talking about diffeences in release times. I'm not surprised, nor bothered, that perhaps some software written for Linux kernel 2.4 doesn't work on 2.6.

But assuming two different distros have the 2.6 kernel, then why shouldn't they both be capable of running the same software?

The kernel is only the base that the distro is built on.

I must admit that partly I'm questioning this because I'm a little annoyed. The first Linux distro I tried was Fedora, and only afterwards was it clearly explained that it's a sort of "permanent beta", where stability was not guarunteed. I'm sorry, but I read the Fedora web site carefully, and it does not explain clearly what it is. I thought it was a reasonable candidate for consumer use.

But then someone recomended CentOS, because it's more stable. No one said "... but it's really designed more for being a server.". Nothing was said along those lines.

MUch more stable, btu that also means not quite as uptodate with the latest that is out there.

Now, after spending weeks getting things like Japanese support, my Palm Pilot to work, Gnome configured, and many other trials and errors, *now*, when I want to get a DVD writing program, people are saying "Oh, well, really CentOS is not really all that good for those kinds of purposes". Where was this advice before?

In fact, I'm looking at the CentOS web site now, and in it's "Goals" section it says, among other things:

• easy maintenance
• friendly environment for users and package maintainers

Noticibly lacking is anything saying "a server oriented OS", or "not really intended to run consumer level software". Where was I supposed to come to understand that CentOS was not only a "stable enterprise class OS" but also limited in exactly how many applications it would be able to accomodate?

So I'm sorry if I'm sounding like a whiner at this point, but if I have to change to another distro and again go through all the growing pains of learning how to use it as well I think I might run back to Windows world. I mean, I've come to really like Linux for a lot of reasons, but I'm getting a little tired of the "this Linux for that, that Linux for this" confusion that only hardened Linux gurus can sort out.

I'm not an expert on dvd::rip, and it may not be that difficult to get working. So don't take this as you can't do it.

On Mon, 2005-08-22 at 21:05 +0900, Dave Gutteridge wrote:

(Thread moved over from "Has anyone got dvd::rip to work in CentOS?")

...

Items designed for Windows 95 don't always work on Windows XP or Windows 2003 server.

Yes, but I'm not sure that analogy really represents the situation I'm speaking of with Linux. Items designed in the past may not work with current technologies. That's not a hard concept to grasp, the same way I don't expect my CD player to play casette tapes.

I'm not talking about diffeences in release times. I'm not surprised, nor bothered, that perhaps some software written for Linux kernel 2.4 doesn't work on 2.6.

But assuming two different distros have the 2.6 kernel, then why shouldn't they both be capable of running the same software?

No, because they are not necessarily based on the same shared libraries, nor do they necessarily share the same package management system. If you build something on Mandriva, it probably won't run on RHEL ... if you build something on FC1 it probably won't run on RHEL-4 ... it might run on RHEL-3, since they have similar shared libraries.

What you would really need to do is either build what you want from SRPMS ... or find someone who is maintaining it specifically for RHEL-4 / CentOS-4. (Like Dags repo, dries repo or the extras/centosplus repo)

I must admit that partly I'm questioning this because I'm a little annoyed. The first Linux distro I tried was Fedora, and only afterwards was it clearly explained that it's a sort of "permanent beta", where stability was not guarunteed. I'm sorry, but I read the Fedora web site carefully, and it does not explain clearly what it is. I thought it was a reasonable candidate for consumer use.

Fedora Core is a good distro ... it just has a quick release cycle. It is very comparable to ubuntu, mandriva, debian, etc.

But then someone recomended CentOS, because it's more stable. No one said "... but it's really designed more for being a server.". Nothing was said along those lines.

Hundreds (maybe thousands) of users use CentOS on the Desktop ... it is stable, unsless you are adding stuff to it that makes it unstable.

Now, after spending weeks getting things like Japanese support, my Palm Pilot to work, Gnome configured, and many other trials and errors, *now*, when I want to get a DVD writing program, people are saying "Oh, well, really CentOS is not really all that good for those kinds of purposes". Where was this advice before?

I use k3b to write DVDs ... it is included in CentOS. I don't normally copy stuff off DVDs, other users might.

In fact, I'm looking at the CentOS web site now, and in it's "Goals" section it says, among other things:

• easy maintenance
• friendly environment for users and package maintainers

Noticibly lacking is anything saying "a server oriented OS", or "not really intended to run consumer level software". Where was I supposed to come to understand that CentOS was not only a "stable enterprise class OS" but also limited in exactly how many applications it would be able to accomodate?

CentOS is easy to maintain ... if you stay inside the CentOS repos. Does Microsoft give you support for Norton Ghost or SunOffice installed on Windows ... how about Apache web server? If you install stuff that doesn't come with Windows, you get support from other places.

CentOS is able to do whatever your skills are. I can make it run anything I want ... but the average user might not be able to do so.

CentOS has many packages in it's repo, they are pretty much rock solid. If you go outside that, you must be able to understand and fix your own problems ... though you have gotten much help from the list.

Unless I (or someone else) installs exactly what you have installed ... or unless we can see exactly what is on your individual install, we can only try to troubleshoot assuming you have only CentOS installed.

So I'm sorry if I'm sounding like a whiner at this point, but if I have to change to another distro and again go through all the growing pains of learning how to use it as well I think I might run back to Windows world. I mean, I've come to really like Linux for a lot of reasons, but I'm getting a little tired of the "this Linux for that, that Linux for this" confusion that only hardened Linux gurus can sort out.

I think you might have unrealistic expectations for your Linux distribution. CentOS does certain things (as defined by what is included in it's repos) well. If you want to go outside the realm of what it was designed to do, it requires knowledge of the programs you are installing ... which people at CentOS might not have.

If you go outside what any distro is designed for, windows included, you must have knowledge in what you are trying to do.

You are doing things with CentOS that I have never done (I don't connect it to a Palm, for example ... nor do I rip stuff from DVDs).

On Mon, 2005-08-22 at 05:59 -0700, Bryan J. Smith wrote:

I.e., do you know the a _majority_ of Microsoft own applications did _not_ run correctly on those Windows NT versions? That's before even looking at 3rd party appplications.

Yeah ... all version of MS Office before 2003 (XP?) don't run as a "user" without giving permission to write things where users should not not be able to.

The lack of application support (MS & otherwise) under windows to run as a limited user is the biggest frustration I have to deal with administering windows desktops.

Paul

Dave Gutteridge wrote:

(Thread moved over from "Has anyone got dvd::rip to work in CentOS?")

...

Items designed for Windows 95 don't always work on Windows XP or Windows 2003 server.

Yes, but I'm not sure that analogy really represents the situation I'm speaking of with Linux. Items designed in the past may not work with current technologies. That's not a hard concept to grasp, the same way I don't expect my CD player to play casette tapes.

I must admit that partly I'm questioning this because I'm a little annoyed. The first Linux distro I tried was Fedora, and only afterwards was it clearly explained that it's a sort of "permanent beta", where stability was not guarunteed. I'm sorry, but I read the Fedora web site carefully, and it does not explain clearly what it is. I thought it was a reasonable candidate for consumer use.

But then someone recomended CentOS, because it's more stable. No one said "... but it's really designed more for being a server.". Nothing was said along those lines.

Now, after spending weeks getting things like Japanese support, my Palm Pilot to work, Gnome configured, and many other trials and errors, *now*, when I want to get a DVD writing program, people are saying "Oh, well, really CentOS is not really all that good for those kinds of purposes". Where was this advice before?

In fact, I'm looking at the CentOS web site now, and in it's "Goals" section it says, among other things:

• easy maintenance
• friendly environment for users and package maintainers

Noticibly lacking is anything saying "a server oriented OS", or "not really intended to run consumer level software". Where was I supposed to come to understand that CentOS was not only a "stable enterprise class OS" but also limited in exactly how many applications it would be able to accomodate?

Dave,

Sounds like you're just experiencing the difficulties with Linux in general. Complain to your 'hardware and software vendors' for not supporting Linux.

Where to start.....

CentOS's main purpose is to be a (as close as possible) clone of a 'major enterprise linux' distro. Information about what CentOS is designed to do or not do would be better researched at redhat.com, as CentOS is really not 'designed' by the CentOS team beyond the above statement.

Linux has come a LONG ways towards more main stream coverage of various hardware with software and drivers to do things like enable printers or dvd/cd recorders. But, that coverage is still extremely sparse in comparison to Windows. Almost 100% of computer devices have support written for Windows... again... complain to the manufacturers as they are the ones who need to hear "I didn't buy your product because it has no available driver for a Linux OS, but instead bought 'other product' because support was available". The bucks talk, but with the competitive market in computer hardware, there is not a lot of money for writing drivers, so it will take a LOT of people complaining.

I actually think we Linux folks, are viewed as a bit of a fringe group by most of the manufacturers. :)

As for this OS being server only.... well, the server side of things is extremely strong, due to the fact that it is a far superior OS in general, and need drives availability. Many many many people out there join projects to make one or more things great and then keep it great for the Linux OS. Server packages are often times the best in the world, as the critical need is obvious.. therefore the application is written/maintained.

"Enterprise OS" is also system critical and many businesses have adopted the use of Linux as it is a world class OS. Businesses however rarely are bothered with getting music to play, having the latest greatest video driver, having a DVD player/recorder... et. al. But instead, will choose a printer with 'known support' in Linux... not fight to get what they have working.... and in trade off for the limitations, they get a stable OS. Stability over all else. Many Linux machines will function for years without a reboot... I remember a few years ago, I think it was W2K server.. not sure... had a bug in it that forced a reboot at around 180 days. M$ 'patched' it, but was unable to determine if the patch actually fixed the problem because they couldn't keep a machine up long enough to test it.

If you want to go Linux, you will be limited on one hand, but wide open on the other. Stability is suberb, hardware support limited. If going Linux, one should consider each device purchased, perhaps hit a mailing list to check if others are using this or that. Choose things that work. Yes, that is limiting. Digital cameras, printers, scanners.... so many peripherals... need to be researched before purchase.

Many of the drivers available are because someone out there was bent on using 'this device under Linux'. And was good enough and devoted to the device, so wrote a driver for it. Some of these are great, some not so great, some get you by and some very closely emulate those provided by the manufacture for the Windows environment. Unless one wants to be writing drivers, they should reseach the availability of drivers for a product before purchase.

Me? I have applications, some extremely expensive, that only run under Windows. I'm creating this email from a Winders box. But 'all' of my system critical machines are Linux boxes. I find I can share or integrate Linux into other environments readily. And not to start a flame war here (please), I have this underlying feeling that I would just as soon that Windows stay the mainstream OS, as whoever is on top gets picked on the most.. folks looking for security issues... ways in... etc. Linux is however 'tested' right from the source literally, as anyone can take a look at the source code to try to break in.. We might all be scared to death if Windows source was made publicly available. By nature, quality open source products are subjected to more scrutiny, which in theory leads to higher standards.

We are not mind readers.. please just ask the questions. We wouldn't know to tell you Linux is strong in server areas as a for instance. Don't assume.. just ask beforehand. And yes, frustrations occur, but with persistence, one learns to work within the system and comes out on the other side with a system that is far superior to a Windows machine, if the 'end goal' for a system can fall within those limits.

Aside from stability, a big bonus, is (mostly) free software (yes, some, such as Oracle would need to be licensed). Depending on your system and needs, you could realize savings of hundreds to tens of thousands of dollars per machine and in many cases have the very best available software designed specifically for this OS.

And support..... try to get answers to these types of questions in the Windows environment. Whew!!!!! Some of the best of the Linux community are right here on this list. Hold your head up.... look at your end goal... ask if they can be obtained... and decide if it can be done using Linux. One flavor vs. another rarely has great advantages as far as device support is concerned, but I can say that CentOS does follow almost identically an Enterprise Class OS which has in the past been extremely stable, yet conservative (yes, conservative sometimes to the point of frustration)... but an OS one can absolutely rely upon.

Best, John Hinton

I do appreciate everyone trying to steer me right so that I can understand the deal with Linux and CentOS.

A lot of fair points have been made, and I've got to think about it a bit. Some people seem to be saying I can do the things I want to do, it just takes some work. Some people say I should lower my expectations of Linux. I suppose it's a little of both. Manage my expectations and be prepared for things to not be so clear.

We'll see if I can get this dvd-rip software to fly. If so, I may be over the worst of my conversion pains.

Dave

Chris Mauritz chrism@imntv.com wrote:

I normally don't use Linux for desktop usage.

I can't stand anything but GNOME ever since it hit 1.053 many, many years ago. And before then, Feeble95 did the jobbie too.

However, I recently set up a CentOS 4.1 system specifically to use as a "windows replacement" desktop system. I haven't had a minute's trouble with it and have been happily using it to watch movies, rip CDs, edit/consume M$ Office documents, create some artwork with the Gimp, etc. To date, I haven't found anything I *can't* do with it (except cause it to crash....Windows has that contest locked up...ooh...ugly pun...OK, I'm going now). 8-)

There is something to be said for running Freedomware on Windows. If a user is considering going back to Windows, maybe it's best they get familar with, and all there data over into, Freedomware format from Windows before they attempt Linux again.

Sometimes Linux for Linux's sake can be a bad move. As a good colleague of mine always said (who is a MacOS X user of many, many Freedomware apps), people use applications, not OSes.

On Mon, 2005-08-22 at 10:34, Johnny Hughes wrote:

The reason I do recommend DAG and Dries repos (and currently not any others) is because they do have specific EL4 repos that only contain items that build on EL4 ... so at least you know the libraries work with EL4. I still limit the packages in either of those repos to only install packages not in CentOS repos.

ATRPMS also has EL4 stuff, but there are too many changes to core system files for my taste in that repo, and I use freshrpms all the time for FC, but I don't recommend it for EL4. Both of these are good repos, I just don't use them for CentOS.

Is there any chance of coordinating official centosplus/centosextras repositories with as much stuff as possible compiled against the same base libraries?

Ajay Sharma wrote:

You're better off using a desktop geared distro like Ark, Ubuntu or Gentoo. My desktop is Gentoo and all my servers are CentOS.

Just looking at some stats from this end, I assure you that there are a _lot_ of people using CentOS on the desktop / workstation. A lot of thousands that is :)

- K

On Sun, 21 Aug 2005, Ajay Sharma wrote:

To answer your question, it looks like you need the Locale::TextDomain perl module. You can install it using CPAN if you can't find a RPM:

perl -MCPAN -e shell [a bunch of stuff about configuring the cpan interface if you've never done it before] install Locale::TextDomain

That should do it...

But only if you from here onward are installing applications from tarballs. Doing this will still give you dependency problems with RPM.

That's why the better solution is:

[root@emyn root]# rpm -q --whatprovides 'perl(Locale::TextDomain)' perl-libintl-1.11-2.1.fc3.rf

And go to:

http://dag.wieers.com/packages/perl-libintl/

Tarballs are evil in a managed environment or when you start using Linux. If every Linux expert would start educating people in the use of packages for *everything*, we wouldn't have that many disappointed ex-Linux users and packages would only become better and more would exist.

And if something that is supposed to work doesn't, please REPORT IT. It might not help you resolve the problem immediately, but at least it doesn't go unnoticed. You can whine afterwards if you like...

Remember that a problem you have might be a problem specific to *your* system (*especially* if you use tarballs). So do not expect that someone else will hit the same problem and will report it for you.

Because, apparently, noone else did before you.

Kind regards, -- dag wieers, dag@wieers.com, http://dag.wieers.com/ -- [all I want is a warm bed and a kind word and unlimited power]

Where did you get the rpm from ?

Thank you for helping.

Well, there were two straight from the web page that I tried. One was here, which was intended for Fedora 4, but I thought I'd give it a go: http://stentz.freshrpms.net/rpm.html?id=481

But it says it can't find the following dependancies: Gtk-Perl ogmtools subtitleripper vcdimager perl(Local::Messages)

There are also RPMs here: http://www.exit1.org/dvdrip/contrib/pre-rpms/ From here I tried to download perl-Video-DVDRip-0.45-0.04.2.i386.rpm But it says I need: perl-Gtk-Perl perl-Storable perl-Event

I remember this being an easy install sometime back, lets see if we can make this 'still easy to install'

That would be nice. I tried looking for YUM repositories that have this, but was unsuccessful.

And, as mentioned, I tried isntalling from source, and no luck.

I have transcode successfully installed, and can run it from the command line, but I'm looking for that elusive GUI front end.

Dave