On 01/04/2014 07:14 PM, Xavier Bachelot wrote:
On 01/03/2014 10:05 PM, Orion Poplawski wrote:
> >I'd like to call attention to:
> >Setting up Upgrade Process
> >Resolving Dependencies
> >--> Running transaction check
> >---> Package libbluray.x86_64 0:0.2-0.6.20110710git51d7d60a96d06.el6 will be
> >--> Processing Dependency: libbluray.so.0()(64bit) for package:
> >---> Package libbluray.x86_64 0:0.5.0-2.el6 will be an update
> >--> Finished Dependency Resolution
> >Error: Package: mencoder-1.0-0.140.20120205svn.el6.1.x86_64
> > Requires: libbluray.so.0()(64bit)
> > Removing: libbluray-0.2-0.6.20110710git51d7d60a96d06.el6.x86_64
> > libbluray.so.0()(64bit)
> > Updated By: libbluray-0.5.0-2.el6.x86_64 (epel-testing)
> > Not found
The update has been unpushed.
The karma messages is not the right place to discuss, so let's do it here.
The only dependency for this library is mplayer from RPM Fusion. mplayer
maintainer is ok to rebuild, but RPM Fusion admin is not ok to grant a
buildroot override. I know the update is a soname bump, it was my
mistake to build an early libbluray version in EPEL, and I won't do it
again, but I don't see how plainly refusing the buildroot override
without explanation from any side is helping, especially when the
maintainer of the one and only depending package is ok to rebuild. I'm
just trying to have a maintainable and useful library in EPEL, and I'd
rather drop it than keep it this way, because it is missing a lot of
features and will break sooner or later. People will just have to wait
for RHEL 7 and clones to get it again.
In short, I don't want to maintain this old libbluray in EPEL 6 and
there's nothing I can do to avoid the temporary breakage unless RPM
Fusion admin changes his mind, so either one find a way to have it
updated then mplayer rebuilt against it, either I'll probably drop it
and other dependant packages (which will require an mplayer rebuild anyway).
What I expected to happen is now happening, libbluray in EPEL 6 is too
old to be useful and people wanting to use it are asking for an update.
Nicolas, can you please explain why you are not willing to grant a
buildroot override ? As already explained, I need it to be able to push
an update and ensure the dependency breakage will be kept to a minimum
rather than a full 15 days until the package goes from EPEL testing to
EPEL stable (which might very well never happen if the update is shot
down because it breaks dependency, like it already happened once), plus
the time needed to rebuild and push mplayer in RPM Fusion.
Chicken and egg problem, if you ask me, and the override is the only way
to ease it, especially when the involved packages are spanning over
Also, I'd really like to document how to request a buildroot override in
the wiki, so any explanation is welcome. I've asked several time already
on the IRC channel and also on the mailing list.