On 27 December 2012 00:25, Diego Elio Pettenò <flamee...@flameeyes.eu> wrote: > 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/ >
No I haven't. Like I said I don't know much about the similarities/differences between ffmpeg and libav. So you say that the masked ffmepg provides the same API with the libav-9? Thanks for the info, I was not aware of that. -- Regards, Markos Chandras / Gentoo Linux Developer / Key ID: B4AFF2C2
