Gentoo Websites Logo
Go to: Gentoo Home Documentation Forums Lists Bugs Planet Store Wiki Get Gentoo!
Bug 89663 - media-libs/libirman-0.4.4 version bump
Summary: media-libs/libirman-0.4.4 version bump
Status: RESOLVED FIXED
Alias: None
Product: Gentoo Linux
Classification: Unclassified
Component: New packages (show other bugs)
Hardware: All Linux
: High enhancement (vote)
Assignee: Gentoo TreeCleaner Project
URL: http://lirc.sourceforge.net/software/...
Whiteboard:
Keywords:
: 128643 (view as bug list)
Depends on:
Blocks: 148072
  Show dependency tree
 
Reported: 2005-04-19 07:39 UTC by Olliver Schinagl
Modified: 2006-09-25 04:06 UTC (History)
12 users (show)

See Also:
Package list:
Runtime testing required: ---


Attachments
PICShared patch for libirman 0.4.3 (libirman-0.4.3-PICShared.patch,2.17 KB, patch)
2005-04-19 07:40 UTC, Olliver Schinagl
Details | Diff
destination dir patch for libirman 0.4.3 (libirman-0.4.3-destdir.patch,1.78 KB, patch)
2005-04-19 07:41 UTC, Olliver Schinagl
Details | Diff
ebuild for libirman-0.4.4 (libirman-0.4.4.ebuild,999 bytes, text/plain)
2006-09-19 09:51 UTC, Andrew Nicholson
Details
destination dir patch for libirman 0.4.4 (libirman-0.4.4-destdir.patch,1.78 KB, patch)
2006-09-19 09:52 UTC, Andrew Nicholson
Details | Diff

Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.
Description Olliver Schinagl 2005-04-19 07:39:42 UTC
There's a new version of libirman, that specifically adds 2.6 kernel support.

Reproducible: Always
Steps to Reproduce:
Comment 1 Olliver Schinagl 2005-04-19 07:40:39 UTC
Created attachment 56664 [details, diff]
PICShared patch for libirman 0.4.3
Comment 2 Olliver Schinagl 2005-04-19 07:41:19 UTC
Created attachment 56665 [details, diff]
destination dir patch for libirman 0.4.3

These patches together with a version number bump of the ebuild work for me.
Comment 3 Jakub Moc (RETIRED) gentoo-dev 2006-04-03 08:24:11 UTC
*** Bug 128643 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
Comment 4 Matt Manjos 2006-08-01 06:04:19 UTC
Node's updated patch files work fine for me, on amd64 with GCC 4 as long as I comment out the format patch in the ebuild and bump the gcc4 patch's number.

Comment 5 Christian Faulhammer (RETIRED) gentoo-dev 2006-08-20 23:09:05 UTC
The gcc4 patch shouldn't be needed anymore, according to the announcement of libirman 0.4.4 it incorporates these already.  Haven't tested it though.
Comment 6 Markus Rothe (RETIRED) gentoo-dev 2006-09-19 03:52:20 UTC
unfortunatly the masking broke dependencies of lcdproc:



markus@powerbook ~/gentoo-x86/app-misc/lcdproc $ repoman scan

Setting paths:
PORTDIR = "/home/markus/gentoo-x86"
PORTDIR_OVERLAY = ""

RepoMan scours the neighborhood...

  DEPEND.bad                     4
   app-misc/lcdproc/lcdproc-0.5.0.ebuild: ~x86(default-linux/x86/2006.1) ['media-libs/libirman']
   app-misc/lcdproc/lcdproc-0.5.0.ebuild: ~x86(default-linux/x86/no-nptl) ['media-libs/libirman']
   app-misc/lcdproc/lcdproc-0.5.0.ebuild: ~x86(default-linux/x86/2006.1/desktop) ['media-libs/libirman']
   app-misc/lcdproc/lcdproc-0.5.0.ebuild: ~x86(hardened/x86/2.6) ['media-libs/libirman']
  RDEPEND.bad                    4
   app-misc/lcdproc/lcdproc-0.5.0.ebuild: ~x86(default-linux/x86/2006.1) ['media-libs/libirman']
   app-misc/lcdproc/lcdproc-0.5.0.ebuild: ~x86(default-linux/x86/no-nptl) ['media-libs/libirman']
   app-misc/lcdproc/lcdproc-0.5.0.ebuild: ~x86(default-linux/x86/2006.1/desktop) ['media-libs/libirman']
   app-misc/lcdproc/lcdproc-0.5.0.ebuild: ~x86(hardened/x86/2.6) ['media-libs/libirman']
  digest.assumed                 2
   digest-lcdproc-0.4.5::lcdproc-0.4.5.tar.bz2
   digest-lcdproc-0.5.0::lcdproc-0.5.0.tar.gz

markus@powerbook ~/gentoo-x86/app-misc/lcdproc $
Comment 7 Jakub Moc (RETIRED) gentoo-dev 2006-09-19 04:22:17 UTC
app-misc/lirc-0.8.0-r5
dev-python/irman-python-0.1

have broken dependencies as well...

Comment 8 Alec Warner (RETIRED) archtester gentoo-dev Security 2006-09-19 06:20:03 UTC
(In reply to comment #7)
> app-misc/lirc-0.8.0-r5
> dev-python/irman-python-0.1
> 
> have broken dependencies as well...
> 

All deps fixed (2 extra maskings + 1 use.mask for zzam).
Comment 9 Robert Buchholz (RETIRED) gentoo-dev 2006-09-19 08:20:53 UTC
Could you please remove the package mask for app-misc/lcdproc and put it irman on use mask?
I don't think there's any reason for removing the package completely just because a new version has the possibility of using irman.
Comment 10 Andrew Nicholson 2006-09-19 09:42:07 UTC
Unfortunately, the masking breaks me since I'm using an irman with lirc.  If the only reason libirman is being deleted from the tree is because it's lacking a maintainer, I'd be happy to take it up.  Anyone have pointers on how to do this?  My brief searching didn't turn up anything obvious.
Comment 11 Andrew Nicholson 2006-09-19 09:51:14 UTC
Created attachment 97431 [details]
ebuild for libirman-0.4.4
Comment 12 Andrew Nicholson 2006-09-19 09:52:28 UTC
Created attachment 97432 [details, diff]
destination dir patch for libirman 0.4.4
Comment 13 Rutger Hendriks 2006-09-19 09:57:23 UTC
The mask on lcdproc breaks my MythTV computer/personal video recorder. Will lcdproc be unmasked again?
Comment 14 Alec Warner (RETIRED) archtester gentoo-dev Security 2006-09-19 10:37:59 UTC
(In reply to comment #9)
> Could you please remove the package mask for app-misc/lcdproc and put it irman
> on use mask?
> I don't think there's any reason for removing the package completely just
> because a new version has the possibility of using irman.
> 

done.  I had misread my dep report earlier :x
Comment 15 Joël 2006-09-23 15:14:10 UTC
If I understood right: libirman is scheduled for going away on Oct 19th.

So, what is the suggested replacement for libirman ?
Comment 16 Alec Warner (RETIRED) archtester gentoo-dev Security 2006-09-23 15:53:43 UTC
(In reply to comment #15)
> If I understood right: libirman is scheduled for going away on Oct 19th.
> 
> So, what is the suggested replacement for libirman ?
> 

There isn't a suggested replacement; this bug has been open for 1.5 years.
Comment 17 Markus Ullmann (RETIRED) gentoo-dev 2006-09-24 11:33:59 UTC
Hmm so as one of my (proxy)maintained packages is affected, I'll take it if there are no objections
Comment 18 Christian Heim (RETIRED) gentoo-dev 2006-09-24 11:38:46 UTC
(In reply to comment #17)
> Hmm so as one of my (proxy)maintained packages is affected, I'll take it if
> there are no objections

Nothing at all, but please make sure to fix the outstanding bugs ! :-)
Comment 19 Markus Ullmann (RETIRED) gentoo-dev 2006-09-25 04:06:49 UTC
Took it, bumped it, should be fine now :)