Hi Andreas! Andreas Enge <andr...@enge.fr> writes:
> Hello, > > Am Tue, Mar 28, 2023 at 11:10:01PM -0400 schrieb Maxim Cournoyer: >> I've updated the following dependencies in a group (to try to make >> things a bit more efficient) on the staging branch; the motivation >> originally stemmed from the latest Jami now requiring FFmpeg 6. > > that sounds good if it means we will get rid of the branch for good soon :-) > Otherwise I think it would have been better to work on merging staging and > core-updates and then use a feature branch. Yeah, I was thinking about removing the staging branch afterward, to encourage the new teams workflow. > However I am a bit afraid of repercussions on core-updates (originally I > had planned to first merge back staging into master, but somehow we ended > up working on core-updates first...). I have no idea what is the ordering > between packages in master, staging and core-updates - it may well be > possible that some packages are newer in staging, others in core-updates. > Or that they are the same in both, but with different patches. > For instance, I also updated qt to 5.15.8 on core-updates, but differently, > using a global version variable for making sure to update everything at > once. I think this is preferable. In any case, merging this will be a bit > difficult to sort out without mixing bits from the two parts. > So it would be nice if you could carefully merge master into core-updates > after the staging merge. Apologies for not noticing about the Qt update on core-updates; the change was motivated by the open reports on our bug-guix tracker. I'll gladly volunteer to do the tricky merge after staging is merged into master (and removed). The reason I opted to keep the version per-package instead of in a %qt5-version global variable was initially for tooling; 'guix refresh --update' doesn't work otherwise; but then I noticed that it doesn't work anyway with the 'qt-urls' scheme (it doesn't find a newer release), so I guess I'll keep your approach here. > A typo in the title confused me, but it is gstreamer@1.22.1 instead of > @2.22, which is hopefully less of a change ;-) Eh :-). Yes, it's 1.22.1. > Concerning ffmpeg, we now have 5 different versions of it; @2, @3 and @5 > have almost no dependents, @4 and @6 have many. It would be nice to sort > this out later and hopefully drop most of them. Agreed; the 5 to 6 transition is advertised as very uneventful (outside of Mozilla stuff), with only a few deprecated bits that may cause problems, such as: 1. https://github.com/FFmpeg/FFmpeg/commit/dd846bc4a9163f875cc2c4e99325c1a7b4ab8e7d 2. https://github.com/FFmpeg/FFmpeg/commit/8f72bb866e47bcb57586608086c77cf0a2e2f21a Which easily fixed with a simple substitution, so hopefully we can get rid of ffmpeg@5 soon. -- Thanks, Maxim
