Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-commits] gentoo-x86 commit in x11-libs/libva: ChangeLog libva-1.0.10.ebuild

[Matt Turner <mattst88@gentoo.org>]

2011/5/9 Alexis Ballier <aballier@gentoo.org>:
> maybe your answer is in the readme :)
> http://www.splitted-desktop.com/~gbeauchesne/libva/patches/000_README
>
> some of them are needed, some of them are useful, some we could certainly
> drop. If the most important patches could go upstream then, again, I'm all for
> going to fdo, but I'm not that enthusiastic about it (e.g. fdo git still
> installs the test programs, they make """releases""" that don't even build,
> etc...).
>
> If it's for maintaining my own patchset with the sds patches then I prefer
> using sds directly :) We could start excluding some sds patches to stop
> applying them, bringing us closer to fdo though, it's just I don't see the
> need. Feel free to propose me somes to drop with justifications ;)

The most obvious thing about the SDS version is that the last release
was 24-Feb-2011. There looks to be a number of fixes in the FDO
version that, given the last release was in February of SDS libva,
haven't made it to the SDS version.

We can certainly fix the FDO version to our liking and push things
back upstream, and since FDO actually is upstream, this seems to make
sense.

So, it only seems reasonable to (1) move to the FDO version, (2) fix
and commit fixes for stupid things like installing test programs.
We're not doing much to maintain the software if we just rely on some
guy to patch it for us, I think.

Matt