Hi, I have ffmpeg-9999 and mpv-9999 installed. After recent system update it tries to downgrade mpv to 0.27.1 and says: -------------------------------------------------------------------------- !!! The following installed packages are masked: - media-video/mpv-9999::gentoo (masked by: package.mask) /usr/portage/profiles/package.mask: # Patrice Clement <monsieurp@gentoo.org> (18 Jan 2018) # mpv >= 0.28.0 requires changes currently only available in ffmpeg-9999. For more information, see the MASKED PACKAGES section in the emerge man page or refer to the Gentoo Handbook. -------------------------------------------------------------------------- However, until recently everything was Ok with building ffmpeg-9999 and mpv-9999 Regards, Alex
Well, either you know how to deal with masked packages, and how to unmask them, or you file gratuitous bug reports when you should be seeking support.
*** Bug 647990 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
This comment is here to explain that the bug report has been recently reopened and that Bugzilla does not show that in a (pseudo) comment (bug #648000).
mpv >= 0.28.0 must be masked since it requires ffmpeg-9999 to build and work. I understand that this also masks mpv-9999, but I won't add extra handling for unkeyworded packages to profiles/ dir. Please unmask mpv-9999 locally for now if you want to use it. Once that mask is lifted, I'll drop a comment here.
(In reply to Coacher from comment #4) > mpv >= 0.28.0 must be masked since it requires ffmpeg-9999 to build and work. Please give a reference for this statement. Per-se I do not see any reason for a package.mask (as opposed to a mask by missing keywords), which I rather associate with security and other issues which are *not* handled by portage. Do you imply that there is a requirement by Gentoo which says that "no keyworded package may depend on non-keyworded packages" or something along those lines?
(In reply to Cedric Sodhi from comment #5) > (In reply to Coacher from comment #4) > > mpv >= 0.28.0 must be masked since it requires ffmpeg-9999 to build and work. > > Please give a reference for this statement. Per-se I do not see any reason > for a package.mask (as opposed to a mask by missing keywords), which I > rather associate with security and other issues which are *not* handled by > portage. See https://github.com/mpv-player/mpv/releases/tag/v0.28.0 In particular this part: This release needs recent FFmpeg (newer than 3.4) due to major refactoring. Required library versions: libavutil >= 56.6.100 libavcodec >= 58.7.100 libavformat >= 58.0.102 libswscale >= 5.0.101 libavfilter >= 7.0.101 libswresample >= 3.0.100 These versions are available only in ffmpeg-9999 atm. Once ffmpeg upstream decides to make a new release we will update mpv-0.28.0 ebuild to require that version and lift the mask. > Do you imply that there is a requirement by Gentoo which says that "no > keyworded package may depend on non-keyworded packages" or something along > those lines? It is a Gentoo policy. See https://devmanual.gentoo.org/keywording/index.html
Thanks for the clarification. I assume you are referring to the "Equal Visibility Requirement" policy which in turn demanded that mpv be masked for it had to depend on a non-keyworded ffmpeg? Wouldn't a reasonable alternative which does *not* involve explicitly masking it by profile/package.mask be to non-keyword >=mpv-0.28.0, too? Indeed, I think it would make more sense to non-keyword mpv *and* ffmpeg, just from the definition of keywords in the article you linked: > ~arch (~x86, ~ppc-macos) > The package version and the ebuild are believed to work > and do not have any known serious bugs, but more testing > is required before the package version is considered > suitable for arch. > No keyword > If a package has no keyword for a given arch, it means > it is not known whether the package will work, or that > insufficient testing has occurred for ~arch. If ffmpeg-9999 is non-keyworded, then there is no way mpv, depending on that ffmpeg version can be considered being in ~arch.
