On 26/12/2012 23:19, Markos Chandras wrote: > 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.
Have you tried it with the masked ffmpeg? Because there's a tracker for that as well, and it so happens that shares most of the failure (since ffmpeg merges back most of libav changes anyway). So basically, you're out of luck if you hope that you don't have to look to make this compatible with the new API. -- Diego Elio Pettenò — Flameeyes flamee...@flameeyes.eu — http://blog.flameeyes.eu/
