1 |
On 2010-03-03, Mark Knecht <markknecht@×××××.com> wrote: |
2 |
> On Wed, Mar 3, 2010 at 8:52 AM, Grant Edwards <grant.b.edwards@×××××.com> wrote: |
3 |
>> When upgrading a machine today, I saw a notice that mythtv 0.21 has |
4 |
>> now been hardmasked. ??I think it's because it depends on an obsolte |
5 |
>> version of Qt. ??Don't get me started on the royal PITA of requiring |
6 |
>> that Qt be installed for a backend-only setup on a server. |
7 |
>> |
8 |
>> Since 0.21 and 0.23 is hardmasked, and mythv 0.22 is unstable on |
9 |
>> everything except the amd64 platform, what's an X86 user to do? |
10 |
|
11 |
> I think this is being handled badly but that sort of the way it is for |
12 |
> a few days anyway. Shortly 0.22 will be unmasked as stable if it isn't |
13 |
> already, but there are LOTS and LOTS of things we need to be careful |
14 |
> about when changing or the Myth database will get messed up and |
15 |
> possibly be unusable. |
16 |
|
17 |
I read the instructions for fixing the broken database encoding, but |
18 |
it appears mine is fine -- so updating to 0.22 won't be quite as |
19 |
painful as it might have been. I'll still have to re-build the |
20 |
frontend, since 0.22 doesn't use a compatible protocol. |
21 |
|
22 |
> It seems that a few devs can decide that something like qt3 is enough |
23 |
> to force people to move forward. I've got 5 x64/amd64 frontends plus |
24 |
> a backend PPC server. I'm not convinced they thought about this sort |
25 |
> of mixed environment issue but that's the way it is. |
26 |
> |
27 |
> I am expecting that it's going to be a bad couple of weeks.... |
28 |
> |
29 |
> I'd like to find some sort of sunset overlay for 0.21 but I haven't |
30 |
> looked. Let me know if you go that way. |
31 |
|
32 |
I'll probably try upgrading to 0.22. |
33 |
|
34 |
-- |
35 |
Grant Edwards grant.b.edwards Yow! We're going to a |
36 |
at new disco! |
37 |
gmail.com |