On Mon, 20 Aug 2012 13:15:10 +0300 Konstantin Belousov <kostik...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sat, Aug 18, 2012 at 10:45:10PM +0200, Juergen Lock wrote: > > On Wed, Aug 15, 2012 at 10:09:59AM -0700, Kevin Oberman wrote: > > > On Wed, Aug 15, 2012 at 5:01 AM, Juergen Lock > > > <n...@jelal.kn-bremen.de> wrote: > > > > On Tue, Aug 14, 2012 at 09:54:54PM +0200, Olli Hauer wrote: > > > >> ... > > > >> >> I think I got it: It is only a problem of configuring in > > > >> >> the running vlc. You have to set the right path under > > > >> >> 'Settings','All','Audio','Visualizing','projectM'. That's > > > >> >> all ;-) > > > >> >> > > > >> > Aah-haah! :) I've fixed the default paths and made a new > > > >> > patch: > > > >> > > > > >> > http://people.freebsd.org/~nox/tmp/vlc-2.0.3-010.patch > > > >> > > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> >From your patch: > > > >> > workaround is to deinstall the old vlc-1.x version before > > > >> > building the new one. > > > >> > > > >> What about a conflict line ? > > > >> CONFLICTS_BUILD=${PORTNAME}-1.* > > > >> > > > >> This allows users to fetch the source but they have to > > > >> deinstall the old version before building the new one. > > > > > > > > Hm well the rtld bug this workaround is for only affects the > > > > pulseaudio and notify knobs, and the workaround doesn't work for > > > > the notify knob so it would only cover half the cases, and also > > > > checking if this is needed in the port would require a > > > > __FreeBSD_version bump which is probably overkill for this bug. > > > > > > And why is it overkill? I regularly see comments about not > > > wanting to bump __FreeBSD_version, but it's just an integer > > > (though presented as a fixed-point fraction). There is no > > > shortage and I never have understood why people are so hesitant > > > to change it when there is a real, even if fairly small benefit > > > from the bump. > > > > Hmm. Alexander, what do you think? > > Not being Alexander, but appeared on Cc:. > > IMO, bumping __FreeBSD_version should not be done frivolous, and > routine bug fixes are definitely not the good reason to bump. > > For one, users of HEAD or stable are assumed to run tip of the branch. > If you want defined point of the branch, use release. With this POV, > the usefulness of the bump for bug fix is only a week or two. > > Second, bump of __FreeBSD_version signifies major incompatibility > between pre-bumped tree and current one. In the kernel, each bump of > version in HEAD means that new modules cannot be loaded into new > kernel. > > Bumping for bug fixes is a misuse of the mechanism which was put there > to provide information about major changes in system. For small or > detectable items, use autoconf-like runtime (or build-time *) tests. > > * - Usually, the tests must be run-time, and not build-time. This bug > is greatly amplified by use of __FreeBSD_version. The case that > initiated the discussion is probably the first time I ever saw the > when build-time test makes some sense. I agree with Konstantin and I do not see the point to bump the version just to serve fleeting needs of -stable or -current branch users - their problems will be gone with upgrade to the tip of the respective branch and this is the first thing they are expected to do before reporting a bug anyway. -- Alexander Kabaev
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
