Please bump libxmlpp to 2.33.1, as it fixes a bug for applications which use both libxml2 and libxmlpp. lightspark is affected by this.
Why do you need an unstable version? http://git.gnome.org/browse/libxml++/commit/?id=134d01b686fd7dd89c36585a8737558bbabf06a8 What is the problem with that applications? Maybe we should backport the fix instead of possible
According to the release notes, either 2.33.1 should be used or the following patches need to be backported: dee3577c66333d3f1dd3db4ba43f50e6d6d3f974 752ff3b4394d334ad6ba3e38189d5898fa15c8f0 95243eee9837ab6843a20fa43a6a1ef41d1fcd62 c8e34c3de03c2b41e825e392247efc1ea8698fbf Users have reported instability of the browser plugin, which upstream blames on libxml++.
http://git.gnome.org/browse/libxml++/commit/?id=dee3577c66333d3f1dd3db4ba43f50e6d6d3f974 http://git.gnome.org/browse/libxml++/commit/?id=752ff3b4394d334ad6ba3e38189d5898fa15c8f0 http://git.gnome.org/browse/libxml++/commit/?id=95243eee9837ab6843a20fa43a6a1ef41d1fcd62 http://git.gnome.org/browse/libxml++/commit/?id=c8e34c3de03c2b41e825e392247efc1ea8698fbf
So what's the status on this? Why not bump it and mark it with the ~ keyword? Even hard mask it if you need to, but give lightspark users the chance to have the most stable experience, without having to resort to overlays.
(In reply to comment #4) > So what's the status on this? > Why not bump it and mark it with the ~ keyword? > Even hard mask it if you need to, but give lightspark users the chance to have > the most stable experience, without having to resort to overlays. > If you or any other could point me to bug reports or every place where that problems with lightspark are explained, I could probably try to ask libxml++ upstream to release a new stable version including needed fixes and, that way, all distributions will probably fix it easily without having to use "unstable" release or try to apply that patches to stable release :-)
We have already contacted libxml++ upstream and they are unwilling to release a new stable version ahead of the normal gnome release schedule, whatever that is. Here's a Lightspark bug report which is possibly related to the libxml++ bug: https://bugs.launchpad.net/lightspark/+bug/694375 Is there any reason for or policy which dictates not to add an "unstable" version into the tree?
Upstream thinks that changes can cause side effects and are not ready to be considered for "stable" release: https://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=639075#c1 I am unsure then about the proper way to handle this downstream :-|, maybe we could bump it to 2.33.1 and leave it hardmasked, but it wouldn't be a "proper" fix for lightspark users :-S
Well hardmasking would provide a better solution to LS users than not having it in the repository at all. But that's just my opinion.
+*libxmlpp-2.33.1 (17 Jan 2011) + + 17 Jan 2011; Pacho Ramos <pacho@gentoo.org> -libxmlpp-2.26.1.ebuild, + +libxmlpp-2.33.1.ebuild: + Version bump to fix important lightspark crashes (bug #350150 by Chí-Thanh + Christopher Nguyễn), but hardmask it since upstream considers this as a + development version.
