On 06/17/2012 01:10 PM, Andrew Benton wrote: > On Sun, 17 Jun 2012 11:01:53 +0100 > "Armin K." <kre...@email.com> wrote: > >> I don't know why BLFS rushes to upgrade when it comes to ffmpeg, even >> tough it has been known that it can break something badly. > > We have a general policy to always update packages to the latest stable > version. It's not possible to check everything that depends on it > before updating the book, if we required that the book would be like > Debian stable; way out of date. If it turns out that an important > package is broken by an update we can always revert the change later. > > In this case I would argue that FFmpeg is more important than Transcode > (I don't install Transcode) and so if Transcode needs to be commented > out of the book for a few days while we find a fix then it's not the > end of the world. > > Andy >
I agree it is latest stable, but so is 0.8.11 and 0.7.12 ... They are both latest, recent and stable (ABI and API stable) ... At least try to check packages that don't build/work. I've done my job of checking packages that I use, including gst-ffmpeg, alsa-plugins, gegl and such. I'd rather ditch some new feature for sake of other packages. ffmpeg api has been known to be problematic when major bump occours and I don't call that stable. Also, 0.10.3 wasn't that ancient (not even 3 months iirc). I rather like latest, stable *and working in all expected situations* instead of just latest and stable. I guess latest fully functional wins over latest available on my side. Ie, I am still using systemd 43 and udev 182 here ... They still work as expected (Only udev_acl is missing, and that one has been added into consolekit git repo - I need to get patch for that one). -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/blfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
