hasufell schrieb:
> https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=464536
> https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=470554
>
> for the first bug:
> net-libs/ortp media-libs/mediastreamer and net-voip/linphone
> are from the same upstream and actually have to be bumped and
> stabilized TOGETHER, because it is very likely that they break
> otherwise. And that's exactly what happened. The maintainer was
> probably aware of it, but didn't respond, so arch testers went ahead
> and did not test reverse deps.

I already replied in the second bug but let me reiterate again. What I
wrote in October 2012 to this list[1] is basically still true.

Following retirements, there is nobody in voip team who is interested in
these packages any more. Nobody in voip requested that these packages go
stable. When I read bugzilla reports that version bumps (typically done
as drive-by commits by outside developers) break consumers, then I
sometimes update the dependencies to account for that. When I saw the
second stabilization bug, I added the blocker, but the stabilization
proceeded anyway due to technical issues with the robo-stable scripts.

The ffmpeg-1.0 (and libav-9) situation got especially bad. For example,
a ptlib ebuild was committed which introduced libav-9 compatibility, but
also broke *every* *single* *consumer* of the package[2]! I have only
little time to dedicate to voip packages, and cleaning up the mess that
other developers leave is not a good way to use this time.

> To me it seems one relies on the other to handle this and in the end
> no one does?

We have one user, Andrew Savchenko, who expressed interest to proxy
maintain linphone and its dependencies via the voip overlay. I have
offered to commit the ebuilds for him to g-x86. Unfortunately it was a
lengthy process to allow him access to the overlay but that was cleared
10 days ago.

Once he starts pushing new ebuilds to the overlay, I will add him as
proxy maintainer in metadata.xml.


Best regards,
Chí-Thanh Christopher Nguyễn


[1] http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.linux.gentoo.devel/80638
[2] https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=474742


Reply via email to