Gentoo Websites Logo
Go to: Gentoo Home Documentation Forums Lists Bugs Planet Store Wiki Get Gentoo!
Bug 141595 - mplayer versions out of sequence
Summary: mplayer versions out of sequence
Status: VERIFIED CANTFIX
Alias: None
Product: Gentoo Linux
Classification: Unclassified
Component: New packages (show other bugs)
Hardware: All Linux
: High normal (vote)
Assignee: Gentoo Linux bug wranglers
URL:
Whiteboard:
Keywords:
Depends on:
Blocks:
 
Reported: 2006-07-24 08:32 UTC by genbug
Modified: 2006-07-26 13:15 UTC (History)
0 users

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


Attachments

Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.
Description genbug 2006-07-24 08:32:57 UTC
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  
bash-3.1#
Comment 1 Jakub Moc (RETIRED) gentoo-dev 2006-07-24 08:39:31 UTC
(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.
Comment 2 genbug 2006-07-24 08:51:38 UTC
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.




Comment 3 genbug 2006-07-24 08:58:32 UTC
beg your pardon , it looks like the snaps are hardmasked now. That's a fix.

Comment 4 genbug 2006-07-24 09:02:03 UTC
well , sort of , it still shows as UD for portage but there's forum thread that covers it now.
Thx
Comment 5 Jakub Moc (RETIRED) gentoo-dev 2006-07-24 09:24:42 UTC
Yes, it will downgrade since it is downgrade version-wise. _preX < 20060102 or any other such number.
Comment 6 genbug 2006-07-24 12:38:59 UTC
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?
Comment 7 Jakub Moc (RETIRED) gentoo-dev 2006-07-24 14:19:11 UTC
(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.
Comment 8 genbug 2006-07-26 13:15:01 UTC
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.