[Slackbuilds-users] Patch for libmp4v2
pprkut at liwjatan.at
Thu Jan 28 14:21:27 UTC 2010
On Thursday 28 January 2010 14:30:53 Niels Horn wrote:
> >> Since we're on the subject, what would be reasonable in these cases?
> >> What if a SlackBuild needs patches for -current?
> >> I know SlackBuilds.org supports 13.0-stable only officially, but is it
> >> OK to mention a patch in README if needed? Or create a README.CURRENT
> >> if there are special instructions?
> >> Or (tell me if I'm going too far) let the SlackBuild check the version
> >> of gcc (usually the problem with building on -current) version and
> >> apply the patch?
> >> Sometimes (mostly?) a patch for -current will not cause any
> >> side-effects on -stable and build normally on the "older" gcc. In this
> >> case I guess we can apply the patch anyway (I confess I already did
> >> this in one build)
> > The issue with -current is that it's a moving target. Things might change
> > drastically from one day to another. A fix that worked before might need
> > adjustments to continue working, or it might no longer be necessary, or
> > .... That's why we usually see those fixes for current at a far later
> > point, usually around rc1 or rc2 of the coming release, because it's less
> > likely that things break again at this point.
> > BUT, that doesn't mean you cannot do anything right now. There's in fact
> > a couple of things possible:
> > - try a newer version. There's the chance that it fixes the problems.
> > (in case of libmp4v2 this would be an option)
> > - inform the maintainer of the script about the problem and possible
> > solutions you have found.
> > - if the problem still exists in the most recent version, or we already
> > have the most recent version in the repo, bug upstream. Chances are it
> > will get fixed before the release of the next Slackware version.
> > In case there's really only the way to patch it, I would say it's up to
> > the maintainer of the script IMHO. Like David already mentioned, as long
> > as it doesn't break stable it should be fine.
> > I won't include any patch for -current at this time for any of my
> > scripts. It's just too early in the development process for that. IMHO, a
> > person running -current at this time should be able to fix such problems
> > himself. But that's just my 2 cents.
> > Grs,
> > Heinz
> In the ideal world, you are completely right :)
> But bugging upstream does not always work. I have had really nice
> experiences with some developers who helped me out resolving problems
> and applying patches I suggested.
> On the other hand, some others are not cooperative at all and refuse
> to even correct hard-coded paths like "/usr/local/bin", "/usr/lib/"
Well, I said there is the chance, not that it *will* happen :)
You are of course completely right, and I made the very same experiences as
well. But one should never stop trying, or else we end up like debian :P
> Like you said, a person running -current *should* be able to fix
> problems, but that is also not my experience :) Unfortunately many
> think that -current is something like "Windows Update", or a simple
> way to always run the latest versions of software.
Exactly, and I won't do anything to encourage such thinking :)
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Size: 197 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part.
More information about the SlackBuilds-users