mplayer snapshots have been numbered in such a way that portage sees them as newer than the current release 1.0_pre8-r1
please ensure correct numbering such that emerge installs the correct versions of a package.
* media-video/mplayer :
[ ] 1.0_pre7-r1 (0)
[ ] 1.0_pre8 (0)
[ ~ ] 1.0_pre8-r1 (0)
[M ] 1.0.20060102 (0)
[M ] 1.0.20060217 (0)
[M ] 1.0.20060302 (0)
[M ] 1.0.20060408 (0)
[ I] 1.0.20060415 (0) OVERLAY
bash-3.1#emerge -p mplayer
These are the packages that would be merged, in order:
Calculating dependencies... done!
[ebuild R ] media-video/mplayer-1.0.20060415
(In reply to comment #0)
> please ensure correct numbering such that emerge installs the correct versions
> of a package.
Too late for that. They are keyworded -arch now anyway so that portage does install correct version.
I presume you mean that portage installs the correct version on arch, it does not seem to on ~arch.
The point of the bug report was to flag the error so hopefully devs will be aware and not reproduce it on other packages.
would it not be possible to rename these snapshots so that at least next portage sync things will start to come into line?
Thanks for the quick reply.
beg your pardon , it looks like the snaps are hardmasked now. That's a fix.
well , sort of , it still shows as UD for portage but there's forum thread that covers it now.
Yes, it will downgrade since it is downgrade version-wise. _preX < 20060102 or any other such number.
so it comes back to my original point , pls make sure that snapshots are given a number portage can understand (and that then makes sense to those who understand portage).
there remains an issue here which drew my attention to mplayer , does mplayer req xorg7 as implied by the ebuilds.
it seems not since my 1.0.20060415 works fine with 6.8
may be that should be another issue.
it seems there is a mistaken, or intentionally erroneous dep on x-7
do you have any info on why this dep was added to the ebuilds?
(In reply to comment #6)
> so it comes back to my original point , pls make sure that snapshots are given
> a number portage can understand (and that then makes sense to those who
> understand portage).
I've already told we'll delete those snapshots, any problem here? We won't renumber them, complete waste of time.
> there remains an issue here which drew my attention to mplayer , does mplayer
> req xorg7 as implied by the ebuilds.
Yes, latest mplayer-1.0_pre8-r1 requires modular X for xvmc support, won't change.
thanks for the extra detail.
it seems this v7 dep should be conditional on xvmc then.
since my GeForce does not support this newer feature I dont have xvmc in USE. It is meaninless for this dep to force me to a major upgrade of xorg for a feature I cannot use and does not apply to my hardware.
For those with other platforms or graphics cards it has equally no relevance.
The syntax exists in portage it would seem this is a good place to use it if this feature is so specific, esp. since it implies a non-tivial upgrade process for xorg.
Once that is done I dont see too much harm in removing the snapshots.
Thanks again for your explainations.