On Sat, Nov 5, 2011 at 3:48 PM, Yasha Karant <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

> Thank you.  I am (well) aware of the power of VLC, particularly compared
> with a number of other offerings/applications, both open systems and
> proprietary for fee.  Although I would very much like to comment upon the
> issues you have raised concerning the reading and use of legally purchased
> and owned for-personal-use DVDs across region codes, as this list repeatedly
> has stated that it is strictly technology for technicians/technologists and
> devoid of any intellectual issues or discussions -- including societal
> issues as required under the ACM code of ethics, I shall not take the bait.

Well, it wasn't bait, I was pointing out the need for caution, not
trying to make a moral judgment, and explaining why you won't find
vlc's components in our favorite upstream vendor's open source or free
software licensed source repositories.

> I would very much appreciate it if you would provide the tools, syntax,
> etc., for the needed mock build environment, as I presume that the resulting
> containment is "safer" than allowing ATrpms to have free reign (and free
> update requests) for a production end-user stable EL workstation.

The mock package itself is available from EPEL. By default, it points
to (that other rebuild from our favorite upstream vendor)
repositories, which need re-arrangement to point to somewhat different
names of Scientific Linux channels. Let me spend a bit of time setting
it up for atrpms access. I'll post those in a separate thread.

I had some issues installing it under SL 5.7, due to package version
conflicts with EPEL. Under SL 6.1 on x86_64, vlc pulls in no fewer
than 43 packages from atrpms. I don't think you want to take on
building that youself without atrpms. Maintaing your own dependency
tree will get pretty old, pretty fast.