[gentoo-user] Does (-win32codecs) mean Slots?

[gentoo-user] Does (-win32codecs) mean Slots?

[Ow Mun Heng]

Why doesn't mplayer let me compile with win32codecs? It doesn't pull
down win32codec as a dependency and having that USE flag in the CLI as
well as on make.conf doesn't make a difference.

I still can't get "-win32codecs" to "+win32codecs"

Comment?

-- 
Ow Mun Heng
Gentoo/Linux on DELL D600 1.4Ghz 1.5GB RAM
98% Microsoft(tm) Free!! 
Neuromancer 17:11:11 up 5 days, 1:07, 8 users, load average: 1.17, 1.27,
1.37 


-- 
gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-user] Does (-win32codecs) mean Slots?

[Renat Golubchyk]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 611 bytes --]

On Tue, 12 Jul 2005 17:12:33 +0800 Ow Mun Heng <Ow.Mun.Heng@wdc.com>
wrote:
> Why doesn't mplayer let me compile with win32codecs? It doesn't pull
> down win32codec as a dependency and having that USE flag in the CLI as
> well as on make.conf doesn't make a difference.
> 
> I still can't get "-win32codecs" to "+win32codecs"
> 
> Comment?

What does "emerge -pv mplayer" say? Do you have x86 or ~x86 in your
ACCEPT_KEYWORDS?

Cheers,
Renat

-- 
Probleme kann man niemals mit derselben Denkweise lösen,
durch die sie entstanden sind.
                                              (Einstein)

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

Re: [gentoo-user] Does (-win32codecs) mean Slots?

[Ow Mun Heng]

On Tue, 2005-07-12 at 11:29 +0200, Renat Golubchyk wrote:
> On Tue, 12 Jul 2005 17:12:33 +0800 Ow Mun Heng <Ow.Mun.Heng@wdc.com>
> wrote:
> > Why doesn't mplayer let me compile with win32codecs? It doesn't pull
> > down win32codec as a dependency and having that USE flag in the CLI as
> > well as on make.conf doesn't make a difference.
> > 
> > I still can't get "-win32codecs" to "+win32codecs"

> What does "emerge -pv mplayer" say? Do you have x86 or ~x86 in your
> ACCEPT_KEYWORDS?

[ebuild  N    ] media-video/mplayer-1.0_pre7  -3dfx -3dnow -3dnowext +X
[SNIP]
 (-win32codecs) -xanim -xinerama +xmms +xv +xvid +xvmc 0 k

grep win32 /etc/make.conf
USE="acl acpi dvd minimal aac apache2 win32codecs ssl mmx xine \


USE="win32codecs" emerge -av mplayer

[ebuild  N    ] media-video/mplayer-1.0_pre7  -3dfx -3dnow -3dnowext +X
[SNIP]
 (-win32codecs) -xanim -xinerama +xmms +xv +xvid +xvmc 0 kB 

x86 keyword

Thanks


-- 
Ow Mun Heng
Gentoo/Linux on DELL D600 1.4Ghz 1.5GB RAM
98% Microsoft(tm) Free!! 
Neuromancer 18:11:09 up 5 days, 2:07, 8 users, load average: 1.18, 1.23,
1.10 


-- 
gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-user] Does (-win32codecs) mean Slots?

[David Morgan]

On 18:12 Tue 12 Jul     , Ow Mun Heng wrote:
> [ebuild  N    ] media-video/mplayer-1.0_pre7  -3dfx -3dnow -3dnowext +X
> [SNIP]
>  (-win32codecs) -xanim -xinerama +xmms +xv +xvid +xvmc 0 k
> 
> grep win32 /etc/make.conf
> USE="acl acpi dvd minimal aac apache2 win32codecs ssl mmx xine \
> 
> 
> USE="win32codecs" emerge -av mplayer
> 
> [ebuild  N    ] media-video/mplayer-1.0_pre7  -3dfx -3dnow -3dnowext +X
> [SNIP]
>  (-win32codecs) -xanim -xinerama +xmms +xv +xvid +xvmc 0 kB 
> 
> x86 keyword
> 

iirc the (..) mean that the use flag is unavailable on your profile
(thought maybe it could also mean that it's unavailable for some other
 reason).

what profile are you using?

-- 
gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-user] Does (-win32codecs) mean Slots?

[Ow Mun Heng]

On Tue, 2005-07-12 at 11:47 +0100, David Morgan wrote:
> On 18:12 Tue 12 Jul     , Ow Mun Heng wrote:
> > [ebuild  N    ] media-video/mplayer-1.0_pre7  -3dfx -3dnow -3dnowext +X
> > [SNIP]
> >  (-win32codecs) -xanim -xinerama +xmms +xv +xvid +xvmc 0 k
> > 
> > grep win32 /etc/make.conf
> > USE="acl acpi dvd minimal aac apache2 win32codecs ssl mmx xine \
> > 
> > 
> > USE="win32codecs" emerge -av mplayer
> > 
> > [ebuild  N    ] media-video/mplayer-1.0_pre7  -3dfx -3dnow -3dnowext +X
> > [SNIP]
> >  (-win32codecs) -xanim -xinerama +xmms +xv +xvid +xvmc 0 kB 
> > 
> > x86 keyword
> > 
> 
> iirc the (..) mean that the use flag is unavailable on your profile
> (thought maybe it could also mean that it's unavailable for some other
>  reason).
> 
> what profile are you using?

uclibc profile
/usr/portage/profiles/uclibc/x86/

How can I check?
> 

-- 
Ow Mun Heng
Gentoo/Linux on DELL D600 1.4Ghz 1.5GB RAM
98% Microsoft(tm) Free!! 
Neuromancer 10:50:28 up 5 days, 18:47, 8 users, load average: 0.89,
0.65, 0.59 


-- 
gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-user] Does (-win32codecs) mean Slots?

[David Morgan]

On 10:50 Wed 13 Jul     , Ow Mun Heng wrote:
> uclibc profile
> /usr/portage/profiles/uclibc/x86/
> 

That's probably the problem then

> How can I check?

Profiles have use.mask files.

uclibc/x86 doesn't have one, but it's parent is uclibc whose parent is
base, and win32codecs is in /usr/portage/profiles/base/use.mask, which
is the reason why you can't use win32codecs.

You could remove win32codecs from base/use.mask, try and use it and see
if it works since it shouldn't break anything. But each time you did
emerge sync it'd get written over.

Dave

-- 
gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-user] Does (-win32codecs) mean Slots?

[Holly Bostick]

David Morgan schreef:

> You could remove win32codecs from base/use.mask, try and use it and see
> if it works since it shouldn't break anything. But each time you did
> emerge sync it'd get written over.

Which is why the proper way to unmask a hard-masked package is to enter
it into /etc/portage/package.unmask (and often thereafter also into
/etc/portage/package.keywords, as many hard-masked packages are also
keyword-masked).

HTH,
Holly
-- 
gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-user] Does (-win32codecs) mean Slots?

[David Morgan]

On 12:06 Wed 13 Jul     , Holly Bostick wrote:
> Which is why the proper way to unmask a hard-masked package is to enter
> it into /etc/portage/package.unmask (and often thereafter also into
> /etc/portage/package.keywords, as many hard-masked packages are also
> keyword-masked).
> 

Great, but what does that have to do with USE flags that are masked on a
particular profile?

There's probably an equivalent for them (/etc/portage/profile/use.unmask
at a guess). I suspect that it's masked for a reason though..

Dave

-- 
gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-user] Does (-win32codecs) mean Slots?

[Holly Bostick]

David Morgan schreef:
> On 12:06 Wed 13 Jul     , Holly Bostick wrote:
> 
>>Which is why the proper way to unmask a hard-masked package is to enter
>>it into /etc/portage/package.unmask (and often thereafter also into
>>/etc/portage/package.keywords, as many hard-masked packages are also
>>keyword-masked).
>>
> 
> 
> Great, but what does that have to do with USE flags that are masked on a
> particular profile?

What does which profile it is have to do with the mask?
/etc/portage/package.unmask unmasks hard-masked applications on the
profile you are using-- the profile supercedes all later adjustment
files, insofar as all later adjustment files (/etc/make.conf,
/etc/portage/whatever) all refer to the profile defaults to know what to
adjust.

Obviously -- or at least it seems obvious to me, but that doesn't say
much-- that if the package is hard-masked, the USE flag that is
associated with it will be disabled (because the package the USE flag
would call is unavailable).

So if the package became available (was unmasked), then I would assume
that the USE flag would be enabled, and one could just USE it normally
(via /etc/portage/package.use, or /etc/make.conf).

> 
> There's probably an equivalent for them (/etc/portage/profile/use.unmask
> at a guess). I suspect that it's masked for a reason though..

Yes, hard masking is always for a reason-- and the fact that you have to
go through several steps to install a hard-masked package is, I suspect,
for a reason as well.

Hard masking means that there are serious problems with the package
(under certain conditions, if the package is only hard-masked under
certain arches or profiles), and unmasking it via several steps should
drive home that you're doing something that you should consider
carefully before proceeding with. Hard masking also suggests that
testers are needed to nail down the problem, so that the packages can be
unmasked-- so by unmasking it, you are tacitly agreeing to be such a
tester, and to contribute to b.g.o on the subject.... after all, if the
package has serious problems, you're going to have to deal with them
anyway, so you might as well report what you find.

If you don't want to have anything to do with such a difficult package,
then you shouldn't expend the effort to unmask it... that's why it's
masked, so that those who don't want problems never see it at all.

Holly
-- 
gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-user] Does (-win32codecs) mean Slots?

[David Morgan]

On 12:39 Wed 13 Jul     , Holly Bostick wrote:
> 
> What does which profile it is have to do with the mask?
> /etc/portage/package.unmask unmasks hard-masked applications on the
> profile you are using-- the profile supercedes all later adjustment
> files, insofar as all later adjustment files (/etc/make.conf,
> /etc/portage/whatever) all refer to the profile defaults to know what to
> adjust.
> 

1) This has nothing to do with masked packages, it's about masked use
flags.
2) packages can be masked by profile (as can use flags).

> Obviously -- or at least it seems obvious to me, but that doesn't say
> much-- that if the package is hard-masked, the USE flag that is
> associated with it will be disabled (because the package the USE flag
> would call is unavailable).

Maybe, but that's not the way portage works these things out


Dave

-- 
gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-user] Does (-win32codecs) mean Slots?

[Holly Bostick]

David Morgan schreef:
> On 12:39 Wed 13 Jul     , Holly Bostick wrote:
>>Obviously -- or at least it seems obvious to me, but that doesn't say
>>much-- that if the package is hard-masked, the USE flag that is
>>associated with it will be disabled (because the package the USE flag
>>would call is unavailable).
> 
> 
> Maybe, but that's not the way portage works these things out
> 
Well, it looks like you're at least partially right-- I went back to the
source:

> # Copyright 2004 Gentoo Foundation.
> # Distributed under the terms of the GNU General Public License v2
> # $Header: /var/cvsroot/gentoo-x86/profiles/default-linux/use.mask,v 1.14 2005/05/20 11:52:10 lu_zero Exp $
> 
> # This file masks out USE flags that are simply NOT allowed in the default
> # profile for any architecture.  This works, for example, if a non-default
> # profile (such as the selinux profiles) have a USE flag associated with
> # them.
> 
> uclibc
> 
> # aqua USE flag is only valid on Mac OS X
> aqua
> 
> # amd64 only:
> emul-linux-x86
> 
> # sparc only:
> ultra1
> 
> # x86 only
> divx4linux
> win32codecs
> kqemu


> # Copyright 2004 Gentoo Foundation.
> # Distributed under the terms of the GNU General Public License, v2
> # $Header: /var/cvsroot/gentoo-x86/profiles/default-linux/x86/use.mask,v 1.8 2005/05/21 01:13:41 lu_zero Exp $
> 
> # This file masks out USE flags that are simply NOT allowed in the default
> # x86 profile.  This works, for example, if another architecture's
> # profile have a USE flag associated with (such as altivec, mmx, etc).
> 
> # Unmask x86 instruction sets
> -mmx
> -mmx2
> -mmxext
> -sse
> -sse2
> -3dnow
> -3dnowext
> -win32codecs

Plus, these files are where the masks are, the use.mask for the uclibc
profile only contains

> pam
> nls
> nptl
> nis
> # aqua USE flag is only valid on Mac OS X
> aqua
> 
> # this seems to pull in pre compiled glibc libs.
> divx4linux
> 
> emul-linux-x86
> 
> 
> 

and nothing else (and the other folders in the profile folder don't
contain a use.mask).

Oh, wait a minute, I think I found it:

> # Copyright 1999-2004 Gentoo Foundation
> # Distributed under the terms of the GNU General Public License v2
> # $Header: /var/cvsroot/gentoo-x86/profiles/selinux/use.mask,v 1.1 2005/05/08 23:37:08 pebenito Exp $
> 
> -selinux
> 
> # disallow posix acl since this is SELinux
> acl
> 
> # aqua USE flag is only valid on Mac OS X
> aqua
> 
> # must use a specific SELinux profile that unmasks this
> uclibc
> 
> 
> 
> # Copyright 1999-2004 Gentoo Foundation
> # Distributed under the terms of the GNU General Public License v2
> # $Header: /var/cvsroot/gentoo-x86/profiles/selinux/2005.1/x86-uclibc/use.mask,v 1.3 2005/05/14 20:53:38 pebenito Exp $
> 
> -uclibc
> 
> -win32codecs
> 
> # PPC instructions
> altivec
> 
> nls
> 

But from this, it looks like there is no way to unmask the USE flags in
question-- "simply NOT allowed" seems pretty definitive, although a
careful reading of man portage might reveal a loophole. But I doubt it..
and in fact, it does not seem to have any such, from the files list in
man portage:


> SYNOPSIS
>        /etc/
>               make.globals
>               make.conf(5)
> 
>        /etc/make.profile/
>               deprecated
>               make.defaults
>               packages
>               packages.build
>               package.provided
>               parent
>               use.defaults
>               use.mask
>               virtuals
> 
>        /etc/portage/
>               bashrc
>               package.mask
>               package.unmask
>               package.keywords
>               package.use
>               mirrors
>               categories
> 
>        /etc/portage/profile/
>               site-specific overrides of /etc/make.profile/
> 
>        /usr/portage/profiles/
>               arch.list
>               categories
>               info_pkgs
>               info_vars
>               package.mask
>               profiles.desc
>               thirdpartymirrors
>               use.desc
>               use.local.desc
>               use.mask
> 
>        /var/lib/portage/
>               world
> 

Don't see anything like a use.unmask file.

What I would now be interested in, if this concerned me, is why this
particular USE flag is "simply NOT allowed" under this extremely
specialized profile, but I have no idea where I would find that
information (except maybe b.g.o, or the gentoo docs related to either
uclibc, hardened/selinux, masked packages, or all of the above).

Holly

-- 
gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-user] Does (-win32codecs) mean Slots?

[David Morgan]

(top posting because I can't be bothered to sort all the irrelevant
 stuff you posted)

The person in question is using /usr/portage/profiles/uclibc/x86 

If you look in /usr/portage/profiles/uclibc/x86/parent you'll see that
t's parent profile is /usr/portage/profiles/uclibc/. If you look in
/usr/portage/profiles/uclibc/parent you'll see that it's profile is
/usr/portage/profiles/base.

Now, look in /usr/portage/profiles/base/use.mask

That's the reason the win32codecs useflag is masked on this profile, as
I explained in an earlier email.

Dave


On 13:28 Wed 13 Jul     , Holly Bostick wrote:
> David Morgan schreef:
> > On 12:39 Wed 13 Jul     , Holly Bostick wrote:
> >>Obviously -- or at least it seems obvious to me, but that doesn't say
> >>much-- that if the package is hard-masked, the USE flag that is
> >>associated with it will be disabled (because the package the USE flag
> >>would call is unavailable).
> > 
> > 
> > Maybe, but that's not the way portage works these things out
> > 
> Well, it looks like you're at least partially right-- I went back to the
> source:
> 
> > # Copyright 2004 Gentoo Foundation.
> > # Distributed under the terms of the GNU General Public License v2
> > # $Header: /var/cvsroot/gentoo-x86/profiles/default-linux/use.mask,v 1.14 2005/05/20 11:52:10 lu_zero Exp $
> > 
> > # This file masks out USE flags that are simply NOT allowed in the default
> > # profile for any architecture.  This works, for example, if a non-default
> > # profile (such as the selinux profiles) have a USE flag associated with
> > # them.
> > 
> > uclibc
> > 
> > # aqua USE flag is only valid on Mac OS X
> > aqua
> > 
> > # amd64 only:
> > emul-linux-x86
> > 
> > # sparc only:
> > ultra1
> > 
> > # x86 only
> > divx4linux
> > win32codecs
> > kqemu
> 
> 
> > # Copyright 2004 Gentoo Foundation.
> > # Distributed under the terms of the GNU General Public License, v2
> > # $Header: /var/cvsroot/gentoo-x86/profiles/default-linux/x86/use.mask,v 1.8 2005/05/21 01:13:41 lu_zero Exp $
> > 
> > # This file masks out USE flags that are simply NOT allowed in the default
> > # x86 profile.  This works, for example, if another architecture's
> > # profile have a USE flag associated with (such as altivec, mmx, etc).
> > 
> > # Unmask x86 instruction sets
> > -mmx
> > -mmx2
> > -mmxext
> > -sse
> > -sse2
> > -3dnow
> > -3dnowext
> > -win32codecs
> 
> Plus, these files are where the masks are, the use.mask for the uclibc
> profile only contains
> 
> > pam
> > nls
> > nptl
> > nis
> > # aqua USE flag is only valid on Mac OS X
> > aqua
> > 
> > # this seems to pull in pre compiled glibc libs.
> > divx4linux
> > 
> > emul-linux-x86
> > 
> > 
> > 
> 
> and nothing else (and the other folders in the profile folder don't
> contain a use.mask).
> 
> Oh, wait a minute, I think I found it:
> 
> > # Copyright 1999-2004 Gentoo Foundation
> > # Distributed under the terms of the GNU General Public License v2
> > # $Header: /var/cvsroot/gentoo-x86/profiles/selinux/use.mask,v 1.1 2005/05/08 23:37:08 pebenito Exp $
> > 
> > -selinux
> > 
> > # disallow posix acl since this is SELinux
> > acl
> > 
> > # aqua USE flag is only valid on Mac OS X
> > aqua
> > 
> > # must use a specific SELinux profile that unmasks this
> > uclibc
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > # Copyright 1999-2004 Gentoo Foundation
> > # Distributed under the terms of the GNU General Public License v2
> > # $Header: /var/cvsroot/gentoo-x86/profiles/selinux/2005.1/x86-uclibc/use.mask,v 1.3 2005/05/14 20:53:38 pebenito Exp $
> > 
> > -uclibc
> > 
> > -win32codecs
> > 
> > # PPC instructions
> > altivec
> > 
> > nls
> > 
> 
> But from this, it looks like there is no way to unmask the USE flags in
> question-- "simply NOT allowed" seems pretty definitive, although a
> careful reading of man portage might reveal a loophole. But I doubt it..
> and in fact, it does not seem to have any such, from the files list in
> man portage:
> 
> 
> > SYNOPSIS
> >        /etc/
> >               make.globals
> >               make.conf(5)
> > 
> >        /etc/make.profile/
> >               deprecated
> >               make.defaults
> >               packages
> >               packages.build
> >               package.provided
> >               parent
> >               use.defaults
> >               use.mask
> >               virtuals
> > 
> >        /etc/portage/
> >               bashrc
> >               package.mask
> >               package.unmask
> >               package.keywords
> >               package.use
> >               mirrors
> >               categories
> > 
> >        /etc/portage/profile/
> >               site-specific overrides of /etc/make.profile/
> > 
> >        /usr/portage/profiles/
> >               arch.list
> >               categories
> >               info_pkgs
> >               info_vars
> >               package.mask
> >               profiles.desc
> >               thirdpartymirrors
> >               use.desc
> >               use.local.desc
> >               use.mask
> > 
> >        /var/lib/portage/
> >               world
> > 
> 
> Don't see anything like a use.unmask file.
> 
> What I would now be interested in, if this concerned me, is why this
> particular USE flag is "simply NOT allowed" under this extremely
> specialized profile, but I have no idea where I would find that
> information (except maybe b.g.o, or the gentoo docs related to either
> uclibc, hardened/selinux, masked packages, or all of the above).
> 
> Holly
> 
> -- 
> gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list
> 

-- 
djm

-- 
gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-user] Does (-win32codecs) mean Slots?

[Holly Bostick]

David Morgan schreef:
> (top posting because I can't be bothered to sort all the irrelevant
>  stuff you posted)
> 
> The person in question is using /usr/portage/profiles/uclibc/x86 
> 
> If you look in /usr/portage/profiles/uclibc/x86/parent you'll see that
> t's parent profile is /usr/portage/profiles/uclibc/. If you look in
> /usr/portage/profiles/uclibc/parent you'll see that it's profile is
> /usr/portage/profiles/base.
> 
> Now, look in /usr/portage/profiles/base/use.mask
> 
> That's the reason the win32codecs useflag is masked on this profile, as
> I explained in an earlier email.

But the use.mask-- even the correct one-- still does not lead to an
explanation or documentation of what the mask of a USE flag actually
means or what it means in this particular case (why this specific USE
flag is masked under this specific profile), in such a way that one
would know if it was something one had to learn to live with
(definitively unresolveable), or was in some way "unmaskable". That's
the original issue-- is there a way to compile mPlayer using this USE
flag under this profile, or is there not? Normally, *.mask files seem to
contain some explanation of the reason for the mask (even if only
minimal), which is why I was looking through them, but here that does
not seem to be the case. Does that mean that the OP is SOL?

Holly
-- 
gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-user] Does (-win32codecs) mean Slots?

[David Morgan]

On 14:49 Wed 13 Jul     , Holly Bostick wrote:
> But the use.mask-- even the correct one-- still does not lead to an
> explanation or documentation of what the mask of a USE flag actually
> means or what it means in this particular case (why this specific USE
> flag is masked under this specific profile), in such a way that one
> would know if it was something one had to learn to live with
> (definitively unresolveable), or was in some way "unmaskable". That's
> the original issue-- is there a way to compile mPlayer using this USE
> flag under this profile, or is there not? Normally, *.mask files seem to
> contain some explanation of the reason for the mask (even if only
> minimal), which is why I was looking through them, but here that does
> not seem to be the case. Does that mean that the OP is SOL?
> 

My guess is that he's SOL. If I were in that situation I'd just edit
/usr/portage/profiles/base/use.mask and see if win32codecs will work on
that profile, and if they did they I'd try and figure out how to do it
properly.

I think there's a good chance that win32codecs just won't work with
uclibc though. You might be able to find the reason that it's masked on
bugzilla, in the gentoo-embedded archives or on google.

Dave

-- 
gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-user] Does (-win32codecs) mean Slots?

[Ow Mun Heng]

On Wed, 2005-07-13 at 14:13 +0100, David Morgan wrote:
> On 14:49 Wed 13 Jul     , Holly Bostick wrote:
> > But the use.mask-- even the correct one-- still does not lead to an
> > explanation or documentation of what the mask of a USE flag actually
> > means or what it means in this particular case (why this specific USE
> > flag is masked under this specific profile), in such a way that one
> > would know if it was something one had to learn to live with
> > (definitively unresolveable), or was in some way "unmaskable". That's
> > the original issue-- is there a way to compile mPlayer using this USE
> > flag under this profile, or is there not? Normally, *.mask files seem to
> > contain some explanation of the reason for the mask (even if only
> > minimal), which is why I was looking through them, but here that does
> > not seem to be the case. Does that mean that the OP is SOL?
> > 
> 
> My guess is that he's SOL.

What is SOL? Someone care to tell me? (I'm the OP)

>  If I were in that situation I'd just edit
> /usr/portage/profiles/base/use.mask and see if win32codecs will work on
> that profile, and if they did they I'd try and figure out how to do it
> properly

Hmm.. I think I will try to comment it out and see what goes/gives.

> 
> I think there's a good chance that win32codecs just won't work with
> uclibc though. You might be able to find the reason that it's masked on
> bugzilla, in the gentoo-embedded archives or on google.

I'll trawl and report what I find here (if I find anything :-)

Thanks.

-- 
Ow Mun Heng
Gentoo/Linux on DELL D600 1.4Ghz 1.5GB RAM
98% Microsoft(tm) Free!! 
Neuromancer 22:21:20 up 9:46, 5 users, load average: 0.28, 0.80, 0.96 


-- 
gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-user] Does (-win32codecs) mean Slots?

[David Morgan]

On 22:21 Wed 13 Jul     , Ow Mun Heng wrote:
> What is SOL? Someone care to tell me? (I'm the OP)

Sh*t out of luck

emerge wtf
wtf sol

:)

-- 
gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list

[gentoo-user] Re: Does (-win32codecs) mean Slots?

[Remy Blank]

David Morgan wrote:
> emerge wtf
> wtf sol

Thanks for the tip!

Typically *nix: small program, does only one thing but does it well.
I like the man page.

-- Remy


Remove underscore and suffix in reply address for a timely response.

-- 
gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list

RE: [gentoo-user] Does (-win32codecs) mean Slots?

[Dave Nebinger]

> What is SOL? Someone care to tell me? (I'm the OP)

Excrement out of luck, but use the standard slang curse word instead of
excrement.

;-)


-- 
gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-user] Does (-win32codecs) mean Slots?

[Neil Bothwick]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 424 bytes --]

On Wed, 13 Jul 2005 10:46:23 +0100, David Morgan wrote:

> You could remove win32codecs from base/use.mask, try and use it and see
> if it works since it shouldn't break anything. But each time you did
> emerge sync it'd get written over.

Profile changes should be made in /etc/portage/profiles, then they won't
be overwritten when syncing.


-- 
Neil Bothwick

WinErr 012: Window closed - Do not look inside

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

Re: [gentoo-user] Does (-win32codecs) mean Slots?

[David Morgan]

On 15:42 Mon 18 Jul     , Neil Bothwick wrote:
> On Wed, 13 Jul 2005 10:46:23 +0100, David Morgan wrote:
> 
> > You could remove win32codecs from base/use.mask, try and use it and see
> > if it works since it shouldn't break anything. But each time you did
> > emerge sync it'd get written over.
> 
> Profile changes should be made in /etc/portage/profiles, then they won't
> be overwritten when syncing.
> 

(I think you meant /etc/portage/profile)

I usually go for tempory fixes to see if something works before spending
time finding out the correct solution (I guess that's a result of me
being incredibly lazy, but it's also just easier when you're
investigating something).

I guessed that you might have to use /etc/portage/profile/use.unmask (by
analogy with package.{,un}mask, but apparently the correct thing to do
is to put -win32codecs in /etc/portage/profile/use.mask

Dave

-- 
gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-user] Does (-win32codecs) mean Slots?

[Zac Medico]

Ow Mun Heng wrote:
> Why doesn't mplayer let me compile with win32codecs? It doesn't pull
> down win32codec as a dependency and having that USE flag in the CLI as
> well as on make.conf doesn't make a difference.
> 
> I still can't get "-win32codecs" to "+win32codecs"
> 
> Comment?
> 

The use flag is called "avi" for <mplayer-1.0_pre6-r6 and "win32codecs" for >=mplayer-1.0_pre6-r6 (read the ebuild to 

RDEPEND="avi? ( >=media-libs/win32codecs-20040916 )"

Zac
-- 
gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-user] Does (-win32codecs) mean Slots?

[daniel]

On July 12, 2005 05:12 am, Ow Mun Heng wrote:
> Why doesn't mplayer let me compile with win32codecs? It doesn't pull
> down win32codec as a dependency and having that USE flag in the CLI as
> well as on make.conf doesn't make a difference.
>
> I still can't get "-win32codecs" to "+win32codecs"
>
> Comment?

lemme guess.  you're suing an amd64 profile?  if you use a pure-64bit system, 
you can't use 32bit binary windows codecs, so it's masked for your profile.  
i'm in the same boat as you.  as far as i know, the only options we have are 
(a) re-installing at 32bit, (b) waiting 'till the windows world catches up 
and starts releasing 64bit binary codecs or (c) writing our own decoders :-(

-- 
life sucks, but death doesn't put out at all.
 - thomas j. kopp
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com 

-- 
gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-user] Does (-win32codecs) mean Slots?

[Ow Mun Heng]

On Tue, 2005-07-12 at 22:48 -0400, daniel wrote:
> On July 12, 2005 05:12 am, Ow Mun Heng wrote:
> > Why doesn't mplayer let me compile with win32codecs? It doesn't pull
> > down win32codec as a dependency and having that USE flag in the CLI as
> > well as on make.conf doesn't make a difference.
> >
> > I still can't get "-win32codecs" to "+win32codecs"
> >
> > Comment?
> 
> lemme guess.  you're suing an amd64 profile?  if you use a pure-64bit system, 
> you can't use 32bit binary windows codecs, so it's masked for your profile.  
> i'm in the same boat as you.  as far as i know, the only options we have are 
> (a) re-installing at 32bit, (b) waiting 'till the windows world catches up 
> and starts releasing 64bit binary codecs or (c) writing our own decoders :-(


Nope. It's a simple x86 profile but it's uclibc based. I want to try to
build a minimal Gentoo with Mplayer.

-- 
Ow Mun Heng
Gentoo/Linux on DELL D600 1.4Ghz 1.5GB RAM
98% Microsoft(tm) Free!! 
Neuromancer 10:53:21 up 5 days, 18:49, 8 users, load average: 1.35,
0.94, 0.71 


-- 
gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-user] Does (-win32codecs) mean Slots?

[Edward Catmur]

On Wed, 2005-07-13 at 10:53 +0800, Ow Mun Heng wrote:
> On Tue, 2005-07-12 at 22:48 -0400, daniel wrote:
> > On July 12, 2005 05:12 am, Ow Mun Heng wrote:
> > > Why doesn't mplayer let me compile with win32codecs? It doesn't pull
> > > down win32codec as a dependency and having that USE flag in the CLI as
> > > well as on make.conf doesn't make a difference.
> > >
> > > I still can't get "-win32codecs" to "+win32codecs"
> > >
> > > Comment?

FWIW, if you haven't worked this out yet :) USE flag masking is
controlled by use.mask, which is a standard stackable profile file; as
with package.mask, the masked USE flags are generated by combining
use.mask from all the directories in the profile stack; but unlike
package.mask, which is counteracted by package.unmask, the way to
re-enable USE flags is to delete them from the use.mask profile stack by
entering them in a later-processed use.mask file with a "-" before.

So, what you would do in this case is:

echo "-win32codecs" >> /etc/portage/profile/use.mask

(make sure /etc/portage/profile exists, yada yada.) Again: the - at the
beginning of the line instructs portage to *remove* "win32codecs" from
the list of masked USE flags generated by merging the use.mask profile
stack. Compare e.g. /usr/portage/profiles/default-linux/x86/use.mask.

HTH,

Ed

-- 
gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-user] Does (-win32codecs) mean Slots?

[Patrick Audley]

On Tuesday 12 July 2005 02:12, Ow Mun Heng wrote:
> Why doesn't mplayer let me compile with win32codecs? It doesn't pull
> down win32codec as a dependency and having that USE flag in the CLI as
> well as on make.conf doesn't make a difference.
>
> I still can't get "-win32codecs" to "+win32codecs"

amd64?  If so then you can get a 32-bit mplayer with the win32 codecs from the 
site listed at:

 http://gentoo-wiki.com/HOWTO_AMD_64#Mplayer_and_32bit_codecs

  

-- 
"How human beings change themselves through technology, ideology,
identity, sex, drugs, media and - of course - genital piercing. From
cyborgization to memetics - from the spread of diseases to medical
technology - from  artificial life to extropian concerns like
Nanotechnology, biotechnology, longevity, intelligence drugs, and space
exploration - from transgenderism to neo-dadaism, MUTATE!" -- R.U.Sirius 
...
Patrick Audley                          paudley@blackcat.ca
Blackcat Systems                        http://blackcat.ca
             Bringing Elegance to Complexity
-- 
gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list