-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Hiya,
On 07/02/15 05:16, Ben de Groot wrote: > I discussed this beforehand with said developer on IRC. Ok, that wasn't clear from the commit message. > Do you think a news item to explain this situation and giving > explicit instructions for users who wish to stay with libav would > be useful? No, I think the coincidence of the timing was unfortunate, but it's done now, and if it had been done a month or so after the first news item, it wouldn't have needed any explanation, so probably best just to leave it now. Perhaps a forums article, just so the instructions are available somewhere, but I don't think it deserves a fully fledged news article. > No. Users can unmask the useflag and build mpv with libav if they > wish. You're quite right, the point I was trying to make was that unmasking a USE flag is a very uncommon event, and as such I think seen as riskier than simply unmasking a package. It doesn't stop people building the newer mpv, it just makes them jump through more hoops to follow the news article's guidance. If you're happy with that requirement for that package then there's no real problem... Mike 5:) -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0 iKYEARECAGYFAlTWN7xfFIAAAAAALgAoaXNzdWVyLWZwckBub3RhdGlvbnMub3Bl bnBncC5maWZ0aGhvcnNlbWFuLm5ldEZGQjEyM0ZDRDBCRjcwREE1MzA0MjNBREJC QkFENkEyNkMyMDE1N0EACgkQu7rWomwgFXqTMQCgoAmuIE3YISgo0dEc1l/5DMT5 y+oAn2wLZG2Wds5Is5cLKbksrCTvjyq6 =NwzJ -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
