1 |
On Wed, Mar 3, 2010 at 8:52 AM, Grant Edwards <grant.b.edwards@×××××.com> wrote: |
2 |
> When upgrading a machine today, I saw a notice that mythtv 0.21 has |
3 |
> now been hardmasked. I think it's because it depends on an obsolte |
4 |
> version of Qt. Don't get me started on the royal PITA of requiring |
5 |
> that Qt be installed for a backend-only setup on a server. |
6 |
> |
7 |
> Since 0.21 and 0.23 is hardmasked, and mythv 0.22 is unstable on |
8 |
> everything except the amd64 platform, what's an X86 user to do? |
9 |
> |
10 |
> -- |
11 |
> Grant Edwards grant.b.edwards Yow! My face is new, my |
12 |
|
13 |
I think this is being handled badly but that sort of the way it is for |
14 |
a few days anyway. Shortly 0.22 will be unmasked as stable if it isn't |
15 |
already, but there are LOTS and LOTS of things we need to be careful |
16 |
about when changing or the Myth database will get messed up and |
17 |
possibly be unusable. |
18 |
|
19 |
It seems that a few devs can decide that something like qt3 is enough |
20 |
to force people to move forward. I've got 5 x64/amd64 frontends plus a |
21 |
backend PPC server. I'm not convinced they thought about this sort of |
22 |
mixed environment issue but that's the way it is. |
23 |
|
24 |
I am expecting that it's going to be a bad couple of weeks.... |
25 |
|
26 |
I'd like to find some sort of sunset overlay for 0.21 but I haven't |
27 |
looked. Let me know if you go that way. |
28 |
|
29 |
- Mark |