Re: Somewhat OT was liblzma and ffmpeg

2014-10-04 Thread Brandon Allbery
On Sat, Oct 4, 2014 at 9:53 PM, James Linder wrote: > Could you wax lyrical for a moment on how you did a VM. Mail me off list > if the answer is politically incorrect for the list. > My understanding is that it's painful to (near?) impossible for VirtualBox, largely due to crashing bugs in the

Somewhat OT was liblzma and ffmpeg

2014-10-04 Thread James Linder
On 5 Oct 2014, at 3:00 am, macports-users-requ...@lists.macosforge.org wrote: > 'evening! > > I'm doing a selfupdate, which includes upgrading ffmpeg > +gpl2+nonfree+universal+x11 from 2.3.3_0 to 2.4.1 . That went fine on 10.6, > but on my 10.9 VM I'm running into an issue involving liblzma, w

Re: liblzma and ffmpeg

2014-10-04 Thread Clemens Lang
Hi, - On 4 Oct, 2014, at 19:44, René J.V. Bertin rjvber...@gmail.com wrote: > Why normalise at all? Relative paths on the command line, absolute paths in the database. Plus you might be in a directory symlink that wouldn't be known to the registry when using port provides. > `/Volumes/Debi

Re: liblzma and ffmpeg

2014-10-04 Thread René J . V . Bertin
On Saturday October 04 2014 13:27:53 Clemens Lang wrote: Hi, > I'm suggesting something that normalizes everything besides the MacPorts > prefix. Why normalise at all? > Not sure what you mean with `unreadable pathnames in > /opt/local/var/macports/build` > though. `/Volumes/Debian/MacPorts

Re: liblzma and ffmpeg

2014-10-04 Thread Clemens Lang
Hi, - On 4 Oct, 2014, at 13:14, René J.V. Bertin rjvber...@gmail.com wrote: > I hope you're suggesting something that makes sure that no normalised paths > are > being stored, so as to make a /opt/local symlink as transparent as it could be > expected to be? Which would also get rid of the u

Re: liblzma and ffmpeg

2014-10-04 Thread René J . V . Bertin
On Saturday October 04 2014 13:02:30 Clemens Lang wrote: Hi, > I think that's a good change. Want to go ahead and provide a > patch/commit it before we forget about it again? > > We could also add a step that "de-normalizes" the MacPorts prefix if > it is a symlink, e.g. something along the line

Re: liblzma and ffmpeg

2014-10-04 Thread Clemens Lang
Hi, - On 4 Oct, 2014, at 00:34, Daniel J. Luke dl...@geeklair.net wrote: > http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.os.apple.macports.devel/26581 I think that's a good change. Want to go ahead and provide a patch/commit it before we forget about it again? We could also add a step that "de-normalize

Re: liblzma and ffmpeg

2014-10-03 Thread Daniel J. Luke
On Oct 3, 2014, at 6:24 PM, René J.V. Bertin wrote: > > On Friday October 03 2014 16:43:03 Ryan Schmidt wrote: > >>> It tells me that the file "isn't provided by a port", whatever file I throw >>> at it. >> >> Perhaps it's this: "port provides" only responds to the canonical path. So >> even

Re: liblzma and ffmpeg

2014-10-03 Thread Brandon Allbery
On Fri, Oct 3, 2014 at 6:24 PM, René J.V. wrote: > I have my MacPorts tree on a case-sensitive partition, with /opt/local a > symlink to it. And it doesn't matter whether I use the path with /opt/local > or the "normalised" path. So what does "port contents xz" say, compared to the paths you've

Re: liblzma and ffmpeg

2014-10-03 Thread David Evans
On 10/3/14 1:47 PM, René J.V. Bertin wrote: 'evening! I'm doing a selfupdate, which includes upgrading ffmpeg +gpl2+nonfree+universal+x11 from 2.3.3_0 to 2.4.1 . That went fine on 10.6, but on my 10.9 VM I'm running into an issue involving liblzma, which apparently is not universal, and thus

Re: liblzma and ffmpeg

2014-10-03 Thread René J . V . Bertin
On Friday October 03 2014 16:43:03 Ryan Schmidt wrote: > > It tells me that the file "isn't provided by a port", whatever file I throw > > at it. > > Perhaps it's this: "port provides" only responds to the canonical path. So > even on case-insensitive file systems you must use the correct case,

Re: liblzma and ffmpeg

2014-10-03 Thread Ryan Schmidt
On Oct 3, 2014, at 4:18 PM, René J.V. Bertin wrote: > On Friday October 03 2014 16:05:37 Ryan Schmidt wrote: > >> What do you mean, "`port provides` doesn't work for me"? What does it do? > > It tells me that the file "isn't provided by a port", whatever file I throw > at it. Perhaps it's thi

Re: liblzma and ffmpeg

2014-10-03 Thread René J . V . Bertin
On Friday October 03 2014 16:05:37 Ryan Schmidt wrote: > What do you mean, "`port provides` doesn't work for me"? What does it do? It tells me that the file "isn't provided by a port", whatever file I throw at it. I found the explanation. Nowadays, liblzma is provided by port:xz . Before launc

Re: liblzma and ffmpeg

2014-10-03 Thread David Evans
On 10/3/14 2:11 PM, Brandon Allbery wrote: On Fri, Oct 3, 2014 at 5:05 PM, Ryan Schmidt > wrote: What do you mean, "`port provides` doesn't work for me"? What does it do? Presumably, given "Curiously, I have neither port:lzma nor port:liblzma installed

Re: liblzma and ffmpeg

2014-10-03 Thread Brandon Allbery
On Fri, Oct 3, 2014 at 5:05 PM, Ryan Schmidt wrote: > What do you mean, "`port provides` doesn't work for me"? What does it do? Presumably, given "Curiously, I have neither port:lzma nor port:liblzma installed (on both set-ups)", it's correctly indicating it didn't come from a port. I note that

Re: liblzma and ffmpeg

2014-10-03 Thread Ryan Schmidt
On Oct 3, 2014, at 3:47 PM, René J.V. Bertin wrote: > I'm doing a selfupdate, which includes upgrading ffmpeg > +gpl2+nonfree+universal+x11 from 2.3.3_0 to 2.4.1 . That went fine on 10.6, > but on my 10.9 VM I'm running into an issue involving liblzma, which > apparently is not universal, and

liblzma and ffmpeg

2014-10-03 Thread René J . V . Bertin
'evening! I'm doing a selfupdate, which includes upgrading ffmpeg +gpl2+nonfree+universal+x11 from 2.3.3_0 to 2.4.1 . That went fine on 10.6, but on my 10.9 VM I'm running into an issue involving liblzma, which apparently is not universal, and thus gives me a failure when merging libavcodec.pc