Bug 123066 - media-tv/mythtv : bump to 0.19
|
Bug#:
123066
|
Product: Gentoo Linux
|
Version: unspecified
|
Platform: All
|
|
OS/Version: Linux
|
Status: RESOLVED
|
Severity: enhancement
|
Priority: P2
|
|
Resolution: FIXED
|
Assigned To: cardoe@gentoo.org
|
Reported By: koon@gentoo.org
|
|
Component: Applications
|
|
|
URL:
|
|
Summary: media-tv/mythtv : bump to 0.19
|
|
Keywords:
|
|
Status Whiteboard:
|
|
Opened: 2006-02-16 11:16 0000
|
Separated from bug 115760 for stable marking
Ebuild for 0.19 is in, please test and mark stable
Ccing maintainer for info.
Little quick on the gun to mark 0.19 stable, I've only just added it a week ago
and I've fixed the most recent bug in it yesterday.
Then happy pretesting :) Let us know when it's OK to mark stable.
Cardoe: due to the pending security issue, I guess it's time to test for
stable, if you're OK with it...
In absence of comments, calling arches now. Please test and mark stable
Well now that I know what the flaw is... it turns out that MythTV doesn't use
the ffmpeg code in question.... but either way.. 0.19_p9163-r1 is going stable
on x86 (per Halcy0n's test request) and on ppc (per me)
Actually, MythTV 0.19 depends aren't marked stable on either x86 or ppc
platforms...
['>=media-libs/libiec61883-1.0.0', '>=sys-libs/libavc1394-0.5.0',
'>=sys-libs/libraw1394-1.2.0']
I don't have a way to test on PPC or x86 for these libs. No firewire stuff
here.
No longer a security issue, then.
ppc has marked all of the deps stable, is this still a stabilization request?
I'd say no. Closing, feel free to reopen if you disagree
Okay, one more question:
14 Mar 2006; Doug Goldstein <cardoe@gentoo.org>
mythtv-0.19_p9163-r1.ebuild:
Marking stable on ppc and x86
I just wondering how that got in the changelog, since it didn't happen (it's
still ~ppc). But anyway, is that the version you'd like us to stablize? You
can also do it yourself if you feel like it cardoe. :)
Can anyone actually test the firewire stuff with mythtv? If not, I say we drop
it so that we can mark this stable minus that feature since no one can verify
its stability at all.
Cardoe: what are we going to do with this? We can't test the functionality of
this to ensure it really is stable, nor can I find anyone that has the hardware
to test it.
Halc0yn: I've been super busy at work. I've been meaning to work on this. I
actually found someone today that has it working in production on a x86 box. He
says he's only got a few things marked ~x86. He's going to get me some more
details. I think he'll do so fairly quickly considering I interviewed him for a
job today.
Awesome. If it works for him, feel free to mark everything.
Bump has been finally done!