Summary: | >=media-video/mpv-0.28.0 should not be masked | ||
---|---|---|---|
Product: | Gentoo Linux | Reporter: | Alex <fhlfibh> |
Component: | Current packages | Assignee: | Coacher <itumaykin+gentoo> |
Status: | RESOLVED INVALID | ||
Severity: | normal | CC: | manday, media-video, proxy-maint |
Priority: | Normal | ||
Version: | unspecified | ||
Hardware: | All | ||
OS: | Linux | ||
Whiteboard: | |||
Package list: | Runtime testing required: | --- |
Description
Alex
2018-02-16 20:25:44 UTC
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.
|