Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-commits] gentoo-x86 commit in x11-libs/libva: ChangeLog libva-1.0.10.ebuild

[Alexis Ballier]

On Monday, May 09, 2011 07:00:09 PM Matt Turner wrote:
> 2011/5/9 Alexis Ballier <aballier@g.o>:
> > maybe your answer is in the readme :)
> > http://www.splitted-desktop.com/~gbeauchesne/libva/patches/000_README
> >
> > some of them are needed, some of them are useful, some we could certainly
> > drop. If the most important patches could go upstream then, again, I'm
> > all for going to fdo, but I'm not that enthusiastic about it (e.g. fdo
> > git still installs the test programs, they make """releases""" that
> > don't even build, etc...).
> >
> > If it's for maintaining my own patchset with the sds patches then I
> > prefer using sds directly :) We could start excluding some sds patches
> > to stop applying them, bringing us closer to fdo though, it's just I
> > don't see the need. Feel free to propose me somes to drop with
> > justifications ;)
>
> The most obvious thing about the SDS version is that the last release
> was 24-Feb-2011. There looks to be a number of fixes in the FDO
> version that, given the last release was in February of SDS libva,
> haven't made it to the SDS version.
>
> We can certainly fix the FDO version to our liking and push things
> back upstream, and since FDO actually is upstream, this seems to make
> sense.
>
> So, it only seems reasonable to (1) move to the FDO version, (2) fix
> and commit fixes for stupid things like installing test programs.

switch 2 and 1 and we get a deal ;)

> We're not doing much to maintain the software if we just rely on some
> guy to patch it for us, I think.

I don't see anything wrong with this. Once again, if you want things to move, 
please start looking carefuly at sds patches, pushing what's needed to fdo and 
proposing me to drop what's not. If you're suggesting I do it, then it's not 
_that_ urgent for me since sds works quite well and users seem happy with it.

A.