Summary: | media-tv/mythtv : bump to 0.19 | ||
---|---|---|---|
Product: | Gentoo Linux | Reporter: | Thierry Carrez (RETIRED) <koon> |
Component: | Current packages | Assignee: | Doug Goldstein (RETIRED) <cardoe> |
Status: | RESOLVED FIXED | ||
Severity: | enhancement | CC: | amd64, cardoe, jesse, ppc, x86 |
Priority: | High | ||
Version: | unspecified | ||
Hardware: | All | ||
OS: | Linux | ||
Whiteboard: | |||
Package list: | Runtime testing required: | --- | |
Bug Depends on: | 127811, 127812, 127813 | ||
Bug Blocks: |
Description
Thierry Carrez (RETIRED)
2006-02-16 11:16:00 UTC
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 Yes. 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! |