Re: Bug#683247: Bug#683030: unblock: vlc/2.0.3-1
tags 683247 -moreinfo retitle 683247 unblock libav_6:0.8.3-6 stop On Mon, Jul 30, 2012 at 2:17 PM, Adam D. Barratt wrote: > On 30.07.2012 08:08, Reinhard Tartler wrote: >> I intend to work on a new upload that incorporates your suggestions >> for clarifying the debian/changelog file this week. If you don't mind, >> I'd leave the doxygen and the "Provides: ffmpeg" changes as-is. >> Additionally, I intend to change ffmpeg-dbg from Arch: any to arch: >> all for consistency with libav-extra-dbg (both are empty, transitional >> packages). > > > That sounds fine to me; thanks. Please let us know (and retitle the libav > unblock bug appropriately) once that's been done. I'm doing so with this email. Please consider adjusting the time that is required for migration. Please also note that in additional to the above, I've also included a fix for bug #679542, which prevents the migration of the vlc package. AFAIUI, if vlc would be rebuild against this new version of libav (e.g., by scheduling binNMUs), Britney should let vlc migrate independently of libav. But that might be just a waste of ressources, so your call. -- regards, Reinhard ___ pkg-multimedia-maintainers mailing list pkg-multimedia-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pkg-multimedia-maintainers
Re: Bug#683030: unblock: vlc/2.0.3-1
01.08.2012 в 09:45:12 +0100 Adam D. Barratt написал: > On 01.08.2012 09:14, Fabian Greffrath wrote: > >So, will libav 6:0.8.3-5 get unblocked or should we request this > >separately? > > The libav discussion moved to (the cloned) #683247, where Reinhard > said he was going to upload -6. That bug also contains some > discussion which suggests the previous m-a:foreign changes were > incorrect. In any case, let's move the discussion there, please. > :-) These multi-arch changes were correct (the packages cannot be "Multi-Arch: foreign" because they provide architecture-specific interface) but not ideal (architecture-specific packages should not be "Architecture: all"). And problems created by this non-ideality are mitigated by general uselessness of the packages (they are intented to transition packages which were never in stable). Also, multi-arch changes were described correctly in the changelog before http://anonscm.debian.org/gitweb/?p=pkg-multimedia/libav.git;a=commitdiff;h=677532340a55be1e0974de241f06aa605e2be083 The architecture change of libav-extra-dbg (with libav-regular-dbg forgotten again) was in fact related to #680602, not #680613. And it also creates architecture-dependent "Architecture: all" package problems. Which are again mitigated by uselessness of the package (it is not only intended to transition from package not found in stable, but also does not have reverse dependencies). ___ pkg-multimedia-maintainers mailing list pkg-multimedia-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pkg-multimedia-maintainers
Re: Bug#683030: unblock: vlc/2.0.3-1
On 01.08.2012 09:14, Fabian Greffrath wrote: Am 28.07.2012 17:47, schrieb Adam D. Barratt: On Sat, 2012-07-28 at 15:54 +0100, Adam D. Barratt wrote: Depends: vlc libav (not considered) The new libav does not have an unblock request ttbomk and from a quick look at the diff I'm not prepared to unblock it without at least some discussion (there are changes which don't appear to be mentioned in the changelog and some of the changes listed in the changelog don't actually appear tohave been made). So, will libav 6:0.8.3-5 get unblocked or should we request this separately? The libav discussion moved to (the cloned) #683247, where Reinhard said he was going to upload -6. That bug also contains some discussion which suggests the previous m-a:foreign changes were incorrect. In any case, let's move the discussion there, please. :-) Regards, Adam ___ pkg-multimedia-maintainers mailing list pkg-multimedia-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pkg-multimedia-maintainers
Re: Bug#683030: unblock: vlc/2.0.3-1
Am 28.07.2012 17:47, schrieb Adam D. Barratt: On Sat, 2012-07-28 at 15:54 +0100, Adam D. Barratt wrote: Depends: vlc libav (not considered) The new libav does not have an unblock request ttbomk and from a quick look at the diff I'm not prepared to unblock it without at least some discussion (there are changes which don't appear to be mentioned in the changelog and some of the changes listed in the changelog don't actually appear tohave been made). So, will libav 6:0.8.3-5 get unblocked or should we request this separately? - Fabian ___ pkg-multimedia-maintainers mailing list pkg-multimedia-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pkg-multimedia-maintainers
Re: Bug#683030: unblock: vlc/2.0.3-1
On 2012-08-01 10:14, Fabian Greffrath wrote: > Am 28.07.2012 17:47, schrieb Adam D. Barratt: >> On Sat, 2012-07-28 at 15:54 +0100, Adam D. Barratt wrote: >>> Depends: vlc libav (not considered) >>> >>> The new libav does not have an unblock request ttbomk and from a quick >>> look at the diff I'm not prepared to unblock it without at least some >>> discussion (there are changes which don't appear to be mentioned in the >>> changelog and some of the changes listed in the changelog don't actually >>> appear tohave been made). > > So, will libav 6:0.8.3-5 get unblocked or should we request this > separately? > > - Fabian > > There is a bug for it, #683247, tagged moreinfo. ~Niels ___ pkg-multimedia-maintainers mailing list pkg-multimedia-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pkg-multimedia-maintainers
Re: Bug#683030: unblock: vlc/2.0.3-1
Dear Adam, Am 29.07.2012 23:16, schrieb Adam D. Barratt: I did not apply this change but recognize it from Emdebian sprint: Reason is, I believe, to ease bootstrapping new architectures by suppressing build of arch-all packages. Jonas is right. The main reason for this change was to make it easier to bootstrap the libav package with as little additional (Build-)Dependencies as possible. Libav is involved in several circular dependencies and in the past we got requests by porters to document which B-Ds of libav are actually mandatory and which are optional. Since they are all optional, I suggested a minimal Build-Depends-Bootstrap1 field in README.source, in which I also omitted doxygen. A few weeks later, when I rebuilt the libav package on my system with "dpkg-buildpackage -d" to test the changes fixing #680602, I found that doxygen is still called, which I found unnecessary and thus removed it. Hmmm, unless I'm reading the rules files incorrectly, purely running the binary-arch target should already have DTRT without requiring doxygen to be installed. Hence the query, as the change appears to be effectively an unnecessary no-op right now. Yes, for regular builds which have the full set of B-Ds available, this change is a no-op. But for (1) bootstrapping efforts - which merely need a minimal libav to build other packages which in turn are required to rebuild a full-featured libav - and for (2) quick testings of packaging related changes, this makes a subtle difference. Best Regards, Fabian ___ pkg-multimedia-maintainers mailing list pkg-multimedia-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pkg-multimedia-maintainers
Re: Bug#683030: unblock: vlc/2.0.3-1
Am 28.07.2012 17:47, schrieb Adam D. Barratt: - the changelog also doesn't mention the dropping of the ffmpeg Provides. This was also my change, I am sorry this slipped through without proper documentation. However, this field was so utterly wrong in that libav-tools simply does not provide ffmpeg - it's in its own package. Maybe I found this so obvious that I forgot to mention it. ;) - Fabian ___ pkg-multimedia-maintainers mailing list pkg-multimedia-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pkg-multimedia-maintainers
Re: Bug#683030: unblock: vlc/2.0.3-1
On Sat, 2012-07-28 at 22:32 +0200, Jonas Smedegaard wrote: > On 12-07-28 at 04:47pm, Adam D. Barratt wrote: > > - this change looks slightly odd: > > > > * Do not run doxygen if it is not installed. > > > > doxygen is in B-D-Indep and only appears to be used when building the > > arch:all -doc package. On that basis, why would it not always be > > installed when required? > > I did not apply this change but recognize it from Emdebian sprint: > Reason is, I believe, to ease bootstrapping new architectures by > suppressing build of arch-all packages. Hmmm, unless I'm reading the rules files incorrectly, purely running the binary-arch target should already have DTRT without requiring doxygen to be installed. Hence the query, as the change appears to be effectively an unnecessary no-op right now. Regards, Adam ___ pkg-multimedia-maintainers mailing list pkg-multimedia-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pkg-multimedia-maintainers
Re: Bug#683030: unblock: vlc/2.0.3-1
On 12-07-28 at 04:47pm, Adam D. Barratt wrote: > - this change looks slightly odd: > > * Do not run doxygen if it is not installed. > > doxygen is in B-D-Indep and only appears to be used when building the > arch:all -doc package. On that basis, why would it not always be > installed when required? I did not apply this change but recognize it from Emdebian sprint: Reason is, I believe, to ease bootstrapping new architectures by suppressing build of arch-all packages. - Jonas -- * Jonas Smedegaard - idealist & Internet-arkitekt * Tlf.: +45 40843136 Website: http://dr.jones.dk/ [x] quote me freely [ ] ask before reusing [ ] keep private signature.asc Description: Digital signature ___ pkg-multimedia-maintainers mailing list pkg-multimedia-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pkg-multimedia-maintainers
Re: Bug#683030: unblock: vlc/2.0.3-1
On Sat, 2012-07-28 at 15:54 +0100, Adam D. Barratt wrote: > Depends: vlc libav (not considered) > > The new libav does not have an unblock request ttbomk and from a quick > look at the diff I'm not prepared to unblock it without at least some > discussion (there are changes which don't appear to be mentioned in the > changelog and some of the changes listed in the changelog don't actually > appear tohave been made). Looking again and reading through the associated bug reports, it looks a bit better than I thought; I really shouldn't have to read through longish bug report logs to find out why a change has been made to the packaging, however. libav maintainers (Cced): - the changelog for -5 mentions making transitional packages arch:all, but not a number of removals of "Multi-Arch: foreign" that seem to have been applied to some packages. - the changelog also doesn't mention the dropping of the ffmpeg Provides. - this change looks slightly odd: * Do not run doxygen if it is not installed. doxygen is in B-D-Indep and only appears to be used when building the arch:all -doc package. On that basis, why would it not always be installed when required? Regards, Adam ___ pkg-multimedia-maintainers mailing list pkg-multimedia-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pkg-multimedia-maintainers
