[gentoo-dev] 'mad' vs 'mp3' USE flags

[gentoo-dev] 'mad' vs 'mp3' USE flags

[Daniel Watkins]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

It seems to me that having both of these two flags can only cause confusion.
I upgraded xine-lib yesterday and spent a very frustrating 2 hours trying
to work out what had broken my Amarok MP3 playback. It turns out that
having the 'mp3' USE flag set globally is not good enough to get MP3
playback enabled in xine-lib, you need 'mad' set.

Is there a rationale behind this decision? If not, it would seem to be quite
an important issue, as a lot of users will be looking for MP3 playback (and
expecting it to work from one version of xine-lib to the next, without
having to play with USE flags).

Cheers,
Dan


-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.4 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFEtxeblFI7BNKVCIkRAjXeAJ4uxe0MhE58dDOKfZaSYAvBKK2QIwCfUrGX
OraQa1DQ8BPnuvcAeeEnrl4=
=0n2p
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] 'mad' vs 'mp3' USE flags

[Diego 'Flameeyes' Pettenò]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 771 bytes --]

On Friday 14 July 2006 06:03, Daniel Watkins wrote:
> Is there a rationale behind this decision?
On some systems libmad does not work and has to be masked, if I called it mp3, 
it couldn't be use.masked or all the mp3 supports, even when not provided by 
libmad, would have been removed.

Per-package use.mask is not here for another year and in the mean time I 
needed a working solution, this is it.

I would also say that it helps not to overload the same useflag with different 
meanings, as we already seen a couple of times where v4l and v4l2 useflags 
are better to be two different things, ibidem for qt3/qt4.

-- 
Diego "Flameeyes" Pettenò - http://farragut.flameeyes.is-a-geek.org/
Gentoo/Alt lead, Gentoo/FreeBSD, Video, AMD64, Sound, PAM, KDE

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] 'mad' vs 'mp3' USE flags

[Chris Gianelloni]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1510 bytes --]

On Fri, 2006-07-14 at 05:03 +0100, Daniel Watkins wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
> 
> It seems to me that having both of these two flags can only cause confusion.
> I upgraded xine-lib yesterday and spent a very frustrating 2 hours trying
> to work out what had broken my Amarok MP3 playback. It turns out that
> having the 'mp3' USE flag set globally is not good enough to get MP3
> playback enabled in xine-lib, you need 'mad' set.
> 
> Is there a rationale behind this decision? If not, it would seem to be quite
> an important issue, as a lot of users will be looking for MP3 playback (and
> expecting it to work from one version of xine-lib to the next, without
> having to play with USE flags).

I think the problem is that the flags have started to become used for
different things.  It *used* to be like this:

mp3 - enabled mp3 support
mad - used libmad over $whatever for mp3 playback

What this meant was simple.  If a package *only* used libmad, then
USE=mp3 would enable it.  The *only* reason you would use USE=mad is if,
for example, a package used libmpeg3 *or* libmad, to select between the
two.  Some people have started to interpret the "this package uses
libmad" as "you need USE=mad for mp3 support" which, in my opinion, is
wrong.

If a user has USE="mp3 -mad" then they should *always* have working mp3
support.

-- 
Chris Gianelloni
Release Engineering - Strategic Lead
x86 Architecture Team
Games - Developer
Gentoo Linux

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] 'mad' vs 'mp3' USE flags

[Chris Gianelloni]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1199 bytes --]

On Fri, 2006-07-14 at 16:20 +0200, Diego 'Flameeyes' Pettenò wrote:
> Per-package use.mask is not here for another year and in the mean time I 
> needed a working solution, this is it.

While it is a "working" solution, it isn't necessarily a sensible one.

If the package only uses libmad, and libmad doesn't work on $platform,
then why not simply disable mp3 support on that platform until libmad is
fixed?  Why *force* people to use USE="mp3 mad" on a platform where it
*does* work?

> I would also say that it helps not to overload the same useflag with different 
> meanings, as we already seen a couple of times where v4l and v4l2 useflags 
> are better to be two different things, ibidem for qt3/qt4.

It isn't overloading it, at all.

USE="mp3" means "I want mp3 support" and not "I want mp3 support unless
it happens to use libmad in which case I also need to add mad to my
USE."

Seriously, if the mp3 support via libmad doesn't work on a platform,
drop it.  Don't make everyone else jump through hoops because a few
platforms don't support it.

-- 
Chris Gianelloni
Release Engineering - Strategic Lead
x86 Architecture Team
Games - Developer
Gentoo Linux

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] 'mad' vs 'mp3' USE flags

[Diego 'Flameeyes' Pettenò]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 469 bytes --]

On Friday 14 July 2006 16:38, Chris Gianelloni wrote:
> If a user has USE="mp3 -mad" then they should *always* have working mp3
> support.
Give me per-package use.mask baby, and I'll do whatever you want.

But as when I asked it was considered "low priority", then you can start 
barking at portage devs, instead of me.

-- 
Diego "Flameeyes" Pettenò - http://farragut.flameeyes.is-a-geek.org/
Gentoo/Alt lead, Gentoo/FreeBSD, Video, AMD64, Sound, PAM, KDE

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] 'mad' vs 'mp3' USE flags

[Ciaran McCreesh]

On Fri, 14 Jul 2006 10:43:54 -0400 Chris Gianelloni
<wolf31o2@gentoo.org> wrote:
| If the package only uses libmad, and libmad doesn't work on $platform,
| then why not simply disable mp3 support on that platform until libmad
| is fixed?

Because it confuses the hell out of users who want to know why they're
not getting mp3 support despite a package being shown as being built
with USE=mp3.


-- 
Ciaran McCreesh
Mail            : ciaran dot mccreesh at blueyonder.co.uk


-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] 'mad' vs 'mp3' USE flags

[Diego 'Flameeyes' Pettenò]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1311 bytes --]

On Friday 14 July 2006 16:43, Chris Gianelloni wrote:
> While it is a "working" solution, it isn't necessarily a sensible one.
You can take over xine-lib and fix it however you prefer.

As this, as well as any other idea you can find, is just an HACK until portage 
devs implements the per-package use.mask that i asked WAY before 2.1 release, 
but was then left OUT of the freeze and thus of the featureset we can use 6 
months from now, I REFUSE to change the behaviour.

You should know better than me this problem, considering that you masked 
media-video/transcode on x86 2.4 profile because it was depending on 
linux-headers 2.6 (as it should have been) with v4l2 useflag enabled. You 
should have use.masked (as it was later done) that useflag as it's 2.6 
specific, and I did it that way to satisfy sparc requirement of not having 
v4l useflag present for them, as it failed with 2.4 kernel.

So if I didn't do it that way, forcing people wanting v4l support to use v4l 
v4l2, now I should still have the stupid, broken, idiotic transcode 0.6 in 
the tree, or one of the x86 deptrees broken, or one of the x86 deptrees with 
NO v4l at all.

-- 
Diego "Flameeyes" Pettenò - http://farragut.flameeyes.is-a-geek.org/
Gentoo/Alt lead, Gentoo/FreeBSD, Video, AMD64, Sound, PAM, KDE

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] 'mad' vs 'mp3' USE flags

[Jason Wever]

[-- Warning: decoded text below may be mangled, UTF-8 assumed --]
[-- Attachment #1: Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=X-UNKNOWN; format=flowed, Size: 829 bytes --]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On Fri, 14 Jul 2006, Diego 'Flameeyes' Pettenò wrote:

> But as when I asked it was considered "low priority", then you can start
> barking at portage devs, instead of me.

I know some of us arch team ninjas asked for this in bug #96368 some time 
ago.  For us it would be very very handy to be able to do this rather than 
lots of stuff like "foo? (!arch bar baz)" and the like as well as printing 
out additional ewarns to note that this use flag doesn't work on this arch 
for this package that no one ever sees.

Cheers,
- -- 
Jason Wever
Gentoo/Sparc Team Co-Lead
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.4 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFEt8cSdKvgdVioq28RAiHIAKCOvHET5vWYJ1tL1boX16VKY/WrzgCgklpS
SOmbeqoQVdyDuIoClI1FHYA=
=T0Pq
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

[gentoo-dev] Re: 'mad' vs 'mp3' USE flags

[Daniel Watkins]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Fri, 14 Jul 2006 10:43:54 -0400 Chris Gianelloni
> <wolf31o2@gentoo.org> wrote:
> | If the package only uses libmad, and libmad doesn't work on $platform,
> | then why not simply disable mp3 support on that platform until libmad
> | is fixed?
> 
> Because it confuses the hell out of users who want to know why they're
> not getting mp3 support despite a package being shown as being built
> with USE=mp3.
 
Though that is the situation now on /all/ platforms, not just the ones that
don't support libmad. Surely a solution which confuses the hell out of only
some users is better than one that leads to general confustication?

Dan
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.4 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFEt9lAlFI7BNKVCIkRAhGMAJ9nWYNU18R6OeJQvAS2u91bwl7DwACfdfFB
nYITcILiVd/OcwysmwK10GA=
=1edz
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: 'mad' vs 'mp3' USE flags

[Ciaran McCreesh]

On Fri, 14 Jul 2006 18:49:47 +0100 Daniel Watkins
<daniel@thewatkins.org.uk> wrote:
| Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
| > On Fri, 14 Jul 2006 10:43:54 -0400 Chris Gianelloni
| > <wolf31o2@gentoo.org> wrote:
| > | If the package only uses libmad, and libmad doesn't work on
| > | $platform, then why not simply disable mp3 support on that
| > | platform until libmad is fixed?
| > 
| > Because it confuses the hell out of users who want to know why
| > they're not getting mp3 support despite a package being shown as
| > being built with USE=mp3.
|  
| Though that is the situation now on /all/ platforms, not just the
| ones that don't support libmad. Surely a solution which confuses the
| hell out of only some users is better than one that leads to general
| confustication?

Not really. a) it's consistently slightly confusing now, and b) it's
still indicated by a USE flag, just not the most immediately obvious
one.

Yes, neither situation is ideal, and until package.use.mask comes along
things are going to suck either way. However, the consistent solution
is better than the weird arch hack solution.

-- 
Ciaran McCreesh
Mail            : ciaran dot mccreesh at blueyonder.co.uk


-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] 'mad' vs 'mp3' USE flags

[Chris Gianelloni]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 632 bytes --]

On Fri, 2006-07-14 at 15:59 +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Fri, 14 Jul 2006 10:43:54 -0400 Chris Gianelloni
> <wolf31o2@gentoo.org> wrote:
> | If the package only uses libmad, and libmad doesn't work on $platform,
> | then why not simply disable mp3 support on that platform until libmad
> | is fixed?
> 
> Because it confuses the hell out of users who want to know why they're
> not getting mp3 support despite a package being shown as being built
> with USE=mp3.

Uhh... einfo/elog/ewarn/etc...

-- 
Chris Gianelloni
Release Engineering - Strategic Lead
x86 Architecture Team
Games - Developer
Gentoo Linux

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] 'mad' vs 'mp3' USE flags

[Chris Gianelloni]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2517 bytes --]

On Fri, 2006-07-14 at 17:09 +0200, Diego 'Flameeyes' Pettenò wrote:
> On Friday 14 July 2006 16:43, Chris Gianelloni wrote:
> > While it is a "working" solution, it isn't necessarily a sensible one.
> You can take over xine-lib and fix it however you prefer.

Quite honestly, I don't care.

> As this, as well as any other idea you can find, is just an HACK until portage 
> devs implements the per-package use.mask that i asked WAY before 2.1 release, 
> but was then left OUT of the freeze and thus of the featureset we can use 6 
> months from now, I REFUSE to change the behaviour.

See, it is this kind of self-serving attitude that really needs to stop
around here.  So the portage devs didn't include something that you
wanted in the latest release... Did you give them a patch for it?
Making decisions like this that confuse our users and make the
distribution harder to use and more inconsistent because you have a
personal beef with another team simply because they didn't drop
everything and do what you wanted them to work on instead of what they
already had on their plates does not help our distribution.  Instead, it
makes us look like a bunch of selfish little babies.

No thanks.  I would much rather have a consistent and working
distribution than cater to some childish self-important bullshit that
only harms our users.

> You should know better than me this problem, considering that you masked 
> media-video/transcode on x86 2.4 profile because it was depending on 
> linux-headers 2.6 (as it should have been) with v4l2 useflag enabled. You 
> should have use.masked (as it was later done) that useflag as it's 2.6 
> specific, and I did it that way to satisfy sparc requirement of not having 
> v4l useflag present for them, as it failed with 2.4 kernel.
> 
> So if I didn't do it that way, forcing people wanting v4l support to use v4l 
> v4l2, now I should still have the stupid, broken, idiotic transcode 0.6 in 
> the tree, or one of the x86 deptrees broken, or one of the x86 deptrees with 
> NO v4l at all.

I don't give a crap about transcode.  I was talking about USE=mp3.
Changing the subject doesn't help anyone.

Anyway, I can see that I'm just going to be ignored, and since I don't
have the time to personally take over xine-lib, I'm going to drop it and
just let you do whatever it is you think is "best" instead.

-- 
Chris Gianelloni
Release Engineering - Strategic Lead
x86 Architecture Team
Games - Developer
Gentoo Linux

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] 'mad' vs 'mp3' USE flags

[Simon Stelling]

Diego 'Flameeyes' Pettenò wrote:
> On Friday 14 July 2006 06:03, Daniel Watkins wrote:
>> Is there a rationale behind this decision?
> On some systems libmad does not work and has to be masked, if I called it mp3, 
> it couldn't be use.masked or all the mp3 supports, even when not provided by 
> libmad, would have been removed.
> 
> Per-package use.mask is not here for another year and in the mean time I 
> needed a working solution, this is it.

In the specific case of xine-lib, the mad USE flag can simply be replaced with
mp3 because mips, which is the only arch that has the mad USE flag in use.mask,
doesn't have any version keyworded. Of course that doesn't fix the general
problem, but at least it would save time for a lot of users...

-- 
Kind Regards,

Simon Stelling
Gentoo/AMD64 Developer
-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] 'mad' vs 'mp3' USE flags

[Ciaran McCreesh]

On Fri, 14 Jul 2006 14:14:39 -0400 Chris Gianelloni
<wolf31o2@gentoo.org> wrote:
| On Fri, 2006-07-14 at 15:59 +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
| > On Fri, 14 Jul 2006 10:43:54 -0400 Chris Gianelloni
| > <wolf31o2@gentoo.org> wrote:
| > | If the package only uses libmad, and libmad doesn't work on
| > | $platform, then why not simply disable mp3 support on that
| > | platform until libmad is fixed?
| > 
| > Because it confuses the hell out of users who want to know why
| > they're not getting mp3 support despite a package being shown as
| > being built with USE=mp3.
| 
| Uhh... einfo/elog/ewarn/etc...

Are ignored. And even ignoring that, what're you going to do when
$platform gets support for libmad on certain profiles?

-- 
Ciaran McCreesh
Mail            : ciaran dot mccreesh at blueyonder.co.uk


-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] 'mad' vs 'mp3' USE flags

[Diego 'Flameeyes' Pettenò]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2319 bytes --]

On Friday 14 July 2006 20:20, Chris Gianelloni wrote:
> See, it is this kind of self-serving attitude that really needs to stop
> around here.  So the portage devs didn't include something that you
> wanted in the latest release... Did you give them a patch for it?
Do I ask people to give me patches to xine-lib when they report bugs?

> Making decisions like this that confuse our users and make the
> distribution harder to use and more inconsistent
I find disputable that my solution is "harder to use and more inconsistent". I 
actually find it more consistent across all the arches and platforms we have, 
as Ciaran already said.

> because you have a 
> personal beef with another team simply because they didn't drop
No I didn't do that decision because they didn't put per-package use.mask . I 
did that decision because the only other way to have the same behaviour is 
resorting to the arch hacking thing that is not acceptable to my eyes. Both 
solutions aren't beautiful, I still find my solution better than the arch 
hacking.

What I'm saying with that thing about portage is that you cannot get to me 
screaming that I used an improper solution because the only proper solution 
was _postponed_ by portage team. Which means that if you really don't like 
this situation you have to tell them, not me.

> No thanks.  I would much rather have a consistent and working
> distribution than cater to some childish self-important bullshit that
> only harms our users.
Exactly my point, so why instead of starting criticising my choice in favour 
of your choice you don't go writing the famous patch? By the way, a patch 
there was, by antarus, but needed to be cleaned up. My python skills are 
weak, and you really don't want to see me hacking to portage, but KingTaco 
iirc offered to take a look. But freeze was entered before anybody could do 
anything.

> I don't give a crap about transcode.  I was talking about USE=mp3.
> Changing the subject doesn't help anyone.
I'm not changing the subject, I'm just showing you that xine-lib's USE=mad is 
just _one_ of many other similar problems that don't have a proper solution.

-- 
Diego "Flameeyes" Pettenò - http://farragut.flameeyes.is-a-geek.org/
Gentoo/Alt lead, Gentoo/FreeBSD, Video, AMD64, Sound, PAM, KDE

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] 'mad' vs 'mp3' USE flags

[Diego 'Flameeyes' Pettenò]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 683 bytes --]

On Friday 14 July 2006 20:24, Simon Stelling wrote:
> In the specific case of xine-lib, the mad USE flag can simply be replaced
> with mp3 because mips, which is the only arch that has the mad USE flag in
> use.mask, doesn't have any version keyworded.
If I revert the change, mips won't be able to re-keyword xine-lib anytime 
soon. And I try to make sure that everything I maintain can be used as widely 
as possible. It would be even worse if I now change to mp3, and then mips ask 
to keyword and I have to change it back to mad.

-- 
Diego "Flameeyes" Pettenò - http://farragut.flameeyes.is-a-geek.org/
Gentoo/Alt lead, Gentoo/FreeBSD, Video, AMD64, Sound, PAM, KDE

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] 'mad' vs 'mp3' USE flags

[Chris Gianelloni]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 946 bytes --]

On Fri, 2006-07-14 at 14:20 -0400, Chris Gianelloni wrote:
> On Fri, 2006-07-14 at 17:09 +0200, Diego 'Flameeyes' Pettenò wrote:
> > On Friday 14 July 2006 16:43, Chris Gianelloni wrote:
> > > While it is a "working" solution, it isn't necessarily a sensible one.
> > You can take over xine-lib and fix it however you prefer.

I'd like to apologize for my last email.  I sent it a bit too hastily
and really didn't think.  It definitely read as inflammatory against
Diego, which was not my intention, as he does wonderful work.  However,
it still has some points about the general attitudes that are prevalent
within Gentoo of not doing what is best for our users simply because
someone else doesn't do what we want.  We really need to stop and think
about the users before we make changes like this.  All of us.

-- 
Chris Gianelloni
Release Engineering - Strategic Lead
x86 Architecture Team
Games - Developer
Gentoo Linux

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] 'mad' vs 'mp3' USE flags

[Zac Medico]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Diego 'Flameeyes' Pettenò wrote:
> Per-package use.mask is not here for another year and in the mean time I 
> needed a working solution, this is it.

It think we can have it sooner than "another year".  There are lots of fixes in 2.1.1_pre and I'd like to close the merge window pretty soon so that it can be stabilized.  I'll work on a patch for package.use and package.use.mask so that we should be able to have it in a stable 2.1.1 release within a month or two.

Zac
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.4 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFEt/11/ejvha5XGaMRAjR1AKDZ9lWLwjJ0BUdQv7HTg9RM1xzVbgCdHLhZ
h4k/BfvdaytVeJ42Zyv3H1I=
=WJ9n
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] 'mad' vs 'mp3' USE flags

[Diego 'Flameeyes' Pettenò]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 612 bytes --]

On Friday 14 July 2006 22:24, Zac Medico wrote:
> It think we can have it sooner than "another year".  There are lots of
> fixes in 2.1.1_pre and I'd like to close the merge window pretty soon so
> that it can be stabilized.  I'll work on a patch for package.use and
> package.use.mask so that we should be able to have it in a stable 2.1.1
> release within a month or two.
That would be great, of course that goes a bit against your current schedule, 
no? :)

-- 
Diego "Flameeyes" Pettenò - http://farragut.flameeyes.is-a-geek.org/
Gentoo/Alt lead, Gentoo/FreeBSD, Video, AMD64, Sound, PAM, KDE

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

[gentoo-dev] Re: 'mad' vs 'mp3' USE flags

[Duncan]

Zac Medico <zmedico@gentoo.org> posted 44B7FD7A.6010209@gentoo.org,
excerpted below, on  Fri, 14 Jul 2006 13:24:26 -0700:

>> Per-package use.mask is not here for another year and in the mean time I
>> needed a working solution, this is it.
> 
> It think we can have it sooner than "another year".  There are lots of
> fixes in 2.1.1_pre and I'd like to close the merge window pretty soon so
> that it can be stabilized.  I'll work on a patch for package.use and
> package.use.mask so that we should be able to have it in a stable 2.1.1
> release within a month or two.

PMFJI but don't we have to keep compatibility with old versions for a year
(well, from my read, I believe the precedent is 10 months) after the change
hits stable, or did the discussion I remember reading a bit of decide say
6 months was enough?  

Even if EAPI is used, previous policy would have put it nearly a year from
now, as EAPI was only introduced with 2.1.0, or was it backported?

I've seen discussion of both points above, but no definitive policy
changes.  If I've missed the decisions, others may have as well, so
maybe others will find the answers helpful too.



-- 
Duncan - List replies preferred.   No HTML msgs.
"Every nonfree program has a lord, a master --
and if you use the program, he is your master."  Richard Stallman

-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: 'mad' vs 'mp3' USE flags

[Alec Warner]

Duncan wrote:
> Zac Medico <zmedico@gentoo.org> posted 44B7FD7A.6010209@gentoo.org,
> excerpted below, on  Fri, 14 Jul 2006 13:24:26 -0700:
> 
>>> Per-package use.mask is not here for another year and in the mean time I
>>> needed a working solution, this is it.
>> It think we can have it sooner than "another year".  There are lots of
>> fixes in 2.1.1_pre and I'd like to close the merge window pretty soon so
>> that it can be stabilized.  I'll work on a patch for package.use and
>> package.use.mask so that we should be able to have it in a stable 2.1.1
>> release within a month or two.
> 
> PMFJI but don't we have to keep compatibility with old versions for a year
> (well, from my read, I believe the precedent is 10 months) after the change
> hits stable, or did the discussion I remember reading a bit of decide say
> 6 months was enough?  
> 
> Even if EAPI is used, previous policy would have put it nearly a year from
> now, as EAPI was only introduced with 2.1.0, or was it backported?
> 
> I've seen discussion of both points above, but no definitive policy
> changes.  If I've missed the decisions, others may have as well, so
> maybe others will find the answers helpful too.
EAPI support was in for the 2.0.X version of portage, released on Dec.
1st 2005.  Generally we wait 6 months (one release cycle) for new features.

-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] 'mad' vs 'mp3' USE flags

[Mike Frysinger]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 608 bytes --]

On Friday 14 July 2006 11:09, Diego 'Flameeyes' Pettenò wrote:
> On Friday 14 July 2006 16:43, Chris Gianelloni wrote:
> > While it is a "working" solution, it isn't necessarily a sensible one.
>
> You can take over xine-lib and fix it however you prefer.
>
> As this, as well as any other idea you can find, is just an HACK until
> portage devs implements the per-package use.mask that i asked WAY before
> 2.1 release, but was then left OUT of the freeze and thus of the featureset
> we can use 6 months from now, I REFUSE to change the behaviour.

/me humps angry over worked flameeyes
-mike

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 827 bytes --]