[MPlayer-dev-eng] [PATCH] FreeBSD DVD Fix

[Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski]

On Sunday, 08 August 2004 at 18:57, Daniel Eischen wrote:
> On Sun, 8 Aug 2004, Bernd Ernesti wrote:
> 
> > On Sun, Aug 08, 2004 at 11:32:49AM -0400, Daniel Eischen wrote:
> > [..]
> > > ???  Well, here's a set of FreeBSD patches for mplayer 0.99.5:
> > > 
> > >   http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/cvsweb.cgi/ports/multimedia/mplayer/files/
> > > 
> > > Some of those patches are to get it to build and install
> > > properly in our environment based on how our ports system
> > > works.
> > > 
> > > The next time the port is updated to a newer version of mplayer,
> > > I'll resend you the same link.
> > 
> > Such a thing is kind of useless.
> > How would you expect that a mplayer developer knows which patch
> > if port only and would break a non port build?
> 
> Look at them - the patches are very small and there are only 8
> or 9 of them.

I will.

> Also, do you not wish to know how mplayer is being installed?

Not really. It's up to the maintainer to install it wherever is
appropriate and it's up to us to make it easy for him to do so. This has
already been done. If there are any improvements to be done, have the BSD
maintainer tell us. Or do it yourself.

> Is it not feasible that you might want to
> make it easier for other OSs to build and install out of
> the box so that all the pieces parts get installed where
> the platform wants them to go instead of where mplayer
> wants to put them by default?

It's not important, really. As long as you can modify all necessary paths
by specifying them in ./configure command line, and that has already been
done. If you specify nothing, you get sane FHS defaults.

> > It's up to you to feed back changes and not expect someone else to
> > pull them. Like it is documented in the mplayer docs.
> 
> I find it ironic that you would give preference to bugs filed
> without any patches than to a set of posted patches which
> you refuse to look at just because they were not copied
> from the link and pasted into an email.

It's not that we refuse. It's just that it's easier to have all patches in
one place than to go looking for them all over the Internet.

> > And http links tend to vanish from time to time, so you can't verify
> > after some time that the change which was done, was the same which
> > was intended to be integrated. Not to mention that someone could
> > make new changes and at one point it breaks something and just at
> > that time someone looks at that page, get the patch and integrate it.
> 
> That link has been there for almost 3 years.  The files within it may
> have changed over time, but that is because the port is specific
> to one version of mplayer.  The latter part seems like a bit of
> nonsense.  Patches can arrive on the mailing list at random
> just like someone can look at the link for patches at random.
> Coordination of fixes is needed regardless of where the patches
> originate.

Indeed. But patches not readily available (i.e. not in your mailbox) are
easily overlooked and/or forgotten.

> > I can only hope that you are not the freebsd port maintainer for
> > mplayer.
> 
> I am not.  That said, I have had to fix mplayer only once before
> for ldt allocation.  I sent the patch to the port maintainer and
> he told me to post it here.  I had to subscribe to this list
> in order to post it.  I posted it and it got incorporated.

So what's your problem?

> But the fact that we're having this dialog is due only to
> me having to subscribe to the list in the first place.

Your point being?

Regards,
R.

-- 
MPlayer RPMs maintainer: http://greysector.rangers.eu.org/mplayer/
"I am Grey. I stand between the candle and the star. We are Grey.
 We stand between the darkness ... and the light."
        -- Delenn in Grey Council in Babylon 5:"Babylon Squared"