[gentoo-dev] lastrite media-libs/libdts

[gentoo-dev] lastrite media-libs/libdts

[Samuli Suominen]

# Samuli Suominen <drac@gentoo.org> (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
-- 
gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] lastrite media-libs/libdts

[Peter Volkov]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 597 bytes --]

В Вск, 13/01/2008 в 11:06 +0200, Samuli Suominen пишет:
> # Samuli Suominen <drac@gentoo.org> (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?

-- 
Peter.

[-- Attachment #2: Эта часть сообщения подписана цифровой подписью --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] lastrite media-libs/libdts

[Samuli Suominen]

On Sun, 13 Jan 2008 13:28:36 +0300
Peter Volkov <pva@gentoo.org> wrote:

> В Вск, 13/01/2008 в 11:06 +0200, Samuli Suominen пишет:
> > # Samuli Suominen <drac@gentoo.org> (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

[Petteri Räty]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 223 bytes --]

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


[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 260 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] lastrite media-libs/libdts

[Mike Frysinger]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 297 bytes --]

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

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part. --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 827 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] lastrite media-libs/libdts

[Petteri Räty]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 658 bytes --]

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


[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 260 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] lastrite media-libs/libdts

[Peter Volkov]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1018 bytes --]

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.

[-- Attachment #2: Эта часть сообщения подписана цифровой подписью --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] lastrite media-libs/libdts

[Mike Frysinger]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1386 bytes --]

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

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part. --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 827 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] lastrite media-libs/libdts

[Peter Volkov]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 595 bytes --]

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.

[-- Attachment #2: Эта часть сообщения подписана цифровой подписью --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] lastrite media-libs/libdts

[Petteri Räty]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1244 bytes --]

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


[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 260 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] lastrite media-libs/libdts

[Mike Frysinger]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1152 bytes --]

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

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part. --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 827 bytes --]