Hi, Could you please branch and build lirc for EPEL 10 ? It is needed to build another package. Regards, Xavier
Just of out interest: what is the package you are trying to build which depends on lirc?
Sorry, I forgot to populate the Blocks fields... I have just added vlc, but there will be more (xine-ui, kodi, etc...)
- vlc can use infrared remotes keystrokes, as decoded by the lirc daemon (over unix socket) using a plugin - if lirc daemon provides infrared remote keystrokes as regular input then no vlc plugin is required (default config in lirc nowadays) - the default config of the lirc daemon provides keystrokes using uinput, so regular input events. This is a much better way of submitting lirc keystrokes as they work with any application. - if the lirc daemon is not packaged, then there no way that infrared remote keystrokes could be provided by the lirc daemon over unix sockets Surely vlc can be built without the lirc dependency, same for the other packages - the old way that lirc provides keystrokes is highly unlikely to be used, esp if lirc itself is not packaged.
I'm interested in lirc for audacious.
This is blocking Mythtv in Rpmfusion. If the maintainer is not able or willing to build this, I'll be glad to do the work. My FAS: kni
Andrew, since I turned over maintenance of MythTV to you I should probably turn this one over as well, at least for EPEL packaging. What's your FAS name?
My FAS: kni
Done!
FEDORA-EPEL-2025-13696c3893 (lirc-0.10.0-49.el10_1) has been submitted as an update to Fedora EPEL 10.1. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2025-13696c3893
FEDORA-EPEL-2025-13696c3893 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 10.1 testing repository. You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2025-13696c3893 See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
Andrew, do you see any chance to also build epel10.0?
I'm not sure I can. My local git branch points to epel10, not epel10.X or epel10_X, implying these new epel point releases are all handled automatically on the infra side. Why do you want this built for epel10.0?
(In reply to Andrew Bauer from comment #12) > I'm not sure I can. My local git branch points to epel10, not epel10.X or > epel10_X, implying these new epel point releases are all handled > automatically on the infra side. I am sorry, but there is some misunderstanding. The epel10 Git branch targets always the next upcoming release, currently RHEL 10.1 (similar like Rawhide at Fedora). Thus epel10 Git branch leads to packages with .el10_1. Packages for RHEL 10.0 would need the epel10.0 Git branch leading for builds to .el10_0 (similar like Fedora updates for an already existing Fedora release). This new approach replaces the previous epel9/epel9-next Git branches. See also https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/epel/branches/#_epel_10 for details. And just let me know if there are questions :) > Why do you want this built for epel10.0? To be able to build audacious, depending on lirc, for EPEL 10 for RHEL 10 (without waiting for RHEL 10.1).
>See also https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/epel/branches/#_epel_10 for details. And just let me know if there are questions :) I agree about the misunderstanding. I read through that link last night and a couple of other references to the new epel minor release branching docs. What I have not found in any documentation is exactly what steps need to be performed to checkout an epel minor release branch. git checkout epel10.0 fails, and so does git checkout epel10_0. Sure, I could try fedpkg request-branch epel10.0, but if the workflow is supposed to be similar to Fedora this step shouldn't be needed....Right?
> Sure, I could try fedpkg request-branch epel10.0, but if the workflow is supposed to be similar to Fedora this step shouldn't be needed....Right? Well, 'fedpkg request-branch epel10.0' is needed, because 'epel10' "equals" to 'rawhide' branch, while 'epel10.0' "equals" to 'f42', because mass-branching happened already before any epel10* branch was requested for lirc. See also https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/epel-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org/message/IBGDGNEVXKWTLHBKHGICF4CKQWTV6477/
FEDORA-EPEL-2025-43430ef0b5 (lirc-0.10.0-49.el10_0) has been submitted as an update to Fedora EPEL 10.0. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2025-43430ef0b5
Thank you very much!
FEDORA-EPEL-2025-43430ef0b5 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 10.0 testing repository. You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2025-43430ef0b5 See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
FEDORA-EPEL-2025-13696c3893 (lirc-0.10.0-49.el10_1) has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 10.1 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
FEDORA-EPEL-2025-43430ef0b5 (lirc-0.10.0-49.el10_0) has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 10.0 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
FEDORA-EPEL-2025-34427b2a86 (monit-5.35.2-1.el10_0) has been submitted as an update to Fedora EPEL 10.0. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2025-34427b2a86
Whoops, sorry pasted the wrong bug.