On 26 December 2012 21:25, Pacho Ramos <pa...@gentoo.org> wrote: > El mié, 26-12-2012 a las 19:46 +0100, Pacho Ramos escribió: >> El mié, 26-12-2012 a las 17:14 +0000, Markos Chandras escribió: >> > >> > On Dec 25, 2012 8:33 PM, "Pacho Ramos" <pa...@gentoo.org> wrote: >> > > >> > > >> > > # Pacho Ramos <pa...@gentoo.org> (25 Dec 2012) >> > > # Fails to build with libav-9 (#443238). Removal in a month. >> > > media-libs/libdlna >> > > media-video/ushare >> > > >> > This is not a valid reason to remove it. I use it every day. Please >> > remove the masking. You should have contacted me first as I think I am >> > on metadata (haven't checked yet) >> > >> > >> >> You were contacted at: >> https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=443238#c1 >> >> But no problem with dropping the mask... the only doubt, should we keep >> libdlna too or drop optional ushare support for it? > > + 26 Dec 2012; Pacho Ramos <pa...@gentoo.org> package.mask: > + Unmask libdlna/ushare as it's still soon to kill libav-9 incompatible > + packages (that is still hardmasked) > + >
To be honest, I see no reason for masking packages for removal because they don't build with libav-9. I don't know much about libav-9 but to my understanding it is supposed to provide an API similar to ffmpeg (that's why we have the virtual after all). This means that if the API is now broken, there is nothing wrong with the package, as libav-9 is not API compatible with ffmpeg. I guess the best solution here is to remove the virtual/ffmpeg from dependencies and use just media-video/ffmpeg. Of course, the libav maintainers should know better. -- Regards, Markos Chandras / Gentoo Linux Developer / Key ID: B4AFF2C2
