Re: [gentoo-dev] lastrite media-libs/libdts
В Пнд, 14/01/2008 в 02:10 +0200, Petteri Räty пишет: Mike Frysinger kirjoitti: On Sunday 13 January 2008, Petteri Räty wrote: Peter Volkov kirjoitti: Also why not just do package move for libdts to avoid manual unmerge libdts? Package moves don't work very well if you move an existing package to another. unless they had a block in place ... -mike When you move a package over an another the files don't change. So Portage thinks you have libdca installed but the files are from libdts. So every depending on libdca would have to have their atoms in such a way that doesn't match libdts existing versions. Please correct me if I am wrong. Thank you, now I see. And if I understood correctly to fix atoms you just have to add =media-libs/libdca-0.0.5 into DEPEND of packages which depend only on libdca. After this package move will work as it should. Did I miss anything? Mike, how blocks help here? -- Peter. signature.asc Description: Эта часть сообщения подписана цифровой подписью
Re: [gentoo-dev] lastrite media-libs/libdts
On Wednesday 16 January 2008, Peter Volkov wrote: В Пнд, 14/01/2008 в 02:10 +0200, Petteri Räty пишет: Mike Frysinger kirjoitti: On Sunday 13 January 2008, Petteri Räty wrote: Peter Volkov kirjoitti: Also why not just do package move for libdts to avoid manual unmerge libdts? Package moves don't work very well if you move an existing package to another. unless they had a block in place ... When you move a package over an another the files don't change. So Portage thinks you have libdca installed but the files are from libdts. So every depending on libdca would have to have their atoms in such a way that doesn't match libdts existing versions. Please correct me if I am wrong. Thank you, now I see. And if I understood correctly to fix atoms you just have to add =media-libs/libdca-0.0.5 into DEPEND of packages which depend only on libdca. After this package move will work as it should. Did I miss anything? Mike, how blocks help here? if two packages provide the same binary and they blocked each other, a move would be doable as it would be impossible for the two packages to be installed simultaneously. but as Petteri points out, libdca/libdts dont provide the same SONAME so a package move wouldnt be possible. -mike signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
Re: [gentoo-dev] lastrite media-libs/libdts
В Срд, 16/01/2008 в 06:09 -0500, Mike Frysinger пишет: if two packages provide the same binary and they blocked each other, a move would be doable as it would be impossible for the two packages to be installed simultaneously. but as Petteri points out, libdca/libdts dont provide the same SONAME so a package move wouldnt be possible. Does this requirement stay for programs? I saw we moved ethereal to wireshark. Was that wrong? Do we have any mechanism to indicate that the package was renamed and upgrading should continue with another package? -- Peter. signature.asc Description: Эта часть сообщения подписана цифровой подписью
Re: [gentoo-dev] lastrite media-libs/libdts
Peter Volkov kirjoitti: В Пнд, 14/01/2008 в 02:10 +0200, Petteri Räty пишет: Mike Frysinger kirjoitti: On Sunday 13 January 2008, Petteri Räty wrote: Peter Volkov kirjoitti: Also why not just do package move for libdts to avoid manual unmerge libdts? Package moves don't work very well if you move an existing package to another. unless they had a block in place ... -mike When you move a package over an another the files don't change. So Portage thinks you have libdca installed but the files are from libdts. So every depending on libdca would have to have their atoms in such a way that doesn't match libdts existing versions. Please correct me if I am wrong. Thank you, now I see. And if I understood correctly to fix atoms you just have to add =media-libs/libdca-0.0.5 into DEPEND of packages which depend only on libdca. After this package move will work as it should. Did I miss anything? This requirement would always have to be used and people writing ebuilds a year from now aren't very likely to know about the move history so it's better not to use package moves for situations like this. Regards, Petteri signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] lastrite media-libs/libdts
On Wednesday 16 January 2008, Peter Volkov wrote: В Срд, 16/01/2008 в 06:09 -0500, Mike Frysinger пишет: if two packages provide the same binary and they blocked each other, a move would be doable as it would be impossible for the two packages to be installed simultaneously. but as Petteri points out, libdca/libdts dont provide the same SONAME so a package move wouldnt be possible. Does this requirement stay for programs? I saw we moved ethereal to wireshark. Was that wrong? Do we have any mechanism to indicate that the package was renamed and upgrading should continue with another package? for libraries with changed SONAMEs, it's def a no-no. for programs, it's up for debate, especially considering with the wireshark rename, you most likely had an upgrade right after. the automatic package move = upgrade is a much nicer user upgrade experience than a blocker. for the edge case where the package was installed but not in world, you could argue that the lack of an automatic upgrade is still ok since even unmoved, it would have not triggered the block/upgrade step. -mike signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
Re: [gentoo-dev] lastrite media-libs/libdts
On Sun, 13 Jan 2008 13:28:36 +0300 Peter Volkov [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: В Вск, 13/01/2008 в 11:06 +0200, Samuli Suominen пишет: # Samuli Suominen [EMAIL PROTECTED] (13 Jan 2008) # Masked for removal in about 60 days. # libdts is replaced by libdca. media-libs/libdts =media-video/ffmpeg-0.4.9_p20051216 =media-video/ffmpeg-0.4.9_p2006* =media-video/ffmpeg-0.4.9_p20070129 =media-video/ffmpeg-0.4.9_p20070325 =media-video/ffmpeg-0.4.9_p20070330 Samuli, why do you announce ffmpeg while this looks like just removal of old versions? Also why not just do package move for libdts to avoid manual unmerge libdts? On purpose. There are likely people still using one or two of these ffmpeg versions and they need adjustment period (note the extra 30 days) -drac -- gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] lastrite media-libs/libdts
Peter Volkov kirjoitti: Also why not just do package move for libdts to avoid manual unmerge libdts? Package moves don't work very well if you move an existing package to another. Regards, Petteri signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] lastrite media-libs/libdts
On Sunday 13 January 2008, Petteri Räty wrote: Peter Volkov kirjoitti: Also why not just do package move for libdts to avoid manual unmerge libdts? Package moves don't work very well if you move an existing package to another. unless they had a block in place ... -mike signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
Re: [gentoo-dev] lastrite media-libs/libdts
Mike Frysinger kirjoitti: On Sunday 13 January 2008, Petteri Räty wrote: Peter Volkov kirjoitti: Also why not just do package move for libdts to avoid manual unmerge libdts? Package moves don't work very well if you move an existing package to another. unless they had a block in place ... -mike When you move a package over an another the files don't change. So Portage thinks you have libdca installed but the files are from libdts. So every depending on libdca would have to have their atoms in such a way that doesn't match libdts existing versions. Please correct me if I am wrong. Regards, Petteri signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
