libass 0.9.7 was released today. http://libass.googlecode.com/files/libass-0.9.7.tar.bz2 Please package.
(In reply to comment #0) > libass 0.9.7 was released today. > > http://libass.googlecode.com/files/libass-0.9.7.tar.bz2 > > Please package. Thanks for the notice, I was waiting for this release for a while now as due to the API changes compared to 0.9.6, git snapshot wasn't a good idea. I'll look which packages currently depend on us (I know of gstreamer-plugins-bad and have already prepared a patch so that it works with the new version) and notify their maintainers. I expect to have time to do all this over the weekend.
I've just built libass-0.9.7 and filled these two bugs at rpmfusion (gstreamer-plugins-bad and vlc): https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=757 https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=758
I get failed dependencies: [root@localhost ~]# yum update libass Loaded plugins: fastestmirror, refresh-packagekit Loading mirror speeds from cached hostfile * fedora: mirror.cpsc.ucalgary.ca * rpmfusion-free: mirrors.tummy.com * rpmfusion-free-updates: mirrors.tummy.com * rpmfusion-nonfree: mirrors.tummy.com * rpmfusion-nonfree-updates: mirrors.tummy.com * updates: fedora.osuosl.org * updates-testing: fedora.osuosl.org Setting up Update Process Resolving Dependencies --> Running transaction check --> Processing Dependency: libass.so.3 for package: gstreamer-plugins-bad-0.10.13-6.fc11.i586 ---> Package libass.i586 0:0.9.7-1.fc11 set to be updated --> Finished Dependency Resolution gstreamer-plugins-bad-0.10.13-6.fc11.i586 from installed has depsolving problems --> Missing Dependency: libass.so.3 is needed by package gstreamer-plugins-bad-0.10.13-6.fc11.i586 (installed) Error: Missing Dependency: libass.so.3 is needed by package gstreamer-plugins-bad-0.10.13-6.fc11.i586 (installed) You could try using --skip-broken to work around the problem You could try running: package-cleanup --problems package-cleanup --dupes rpm -Va --nofiles --nodigest
These need to be rebuild. Due to gst-plugins-bad being from rpmfusion, while libass from fedora, certain time frame of broken deps is unavoidable.
libass-0.9.7-1.fc10 has been pushed to the Fedora 10 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
libass-0.9.7-1.fc11 has been pushed to the Fedora 11 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
The libass.so.3 dependency issue is also present with vlc (actually vlc-core).
(In reply to comment #5) > libass-0.9.7-1.fc10 has been pushed to the Fedora 10 stable repository. If > problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. Errr... sorry but what is the point of breaking every package depending on libass.so.3 in a distribution released _almost one year ago_!? Whenever I am running Fedora 10 on some systems it is because I do NOT want to be annoyed by such RPM breakages. Else I would run a newer release. I think there are many people interested by releases which stay relatively stable once they are out, NOT constantly updated with the code of the last month but only with security fixes (or other non-disruptive fixes). Is there any Fedora release providing this level of stability or is every Fedora release always kept in "rawhide" mode? Thanks in advance for enlightening me.
(In reply to comment #8) > Errr... sorry but what is the point of breaking every package depending on > libass.so.3 in a distribution released _almost one year ago_!? > > Whenever I am running Fedora 10 on some systems it is because I do NOT want to > be annoyed by such RPM breakages. Else I would run a newer release. > > I think there are many people interested by releases which stay relatively > stable once they are out, NOT constantly updated with the code of the last > month but only with security fixes (or other non-disruptive fixes). Is there > any Fedora release providing this level of stability or is every Fedora release > always kept in "rawhide" mode? Thanks in advance for enlightening me. Every package here means one package (vlc) in F10 and two packages (vlc and gst-plugins-bad) in F11, both of them are from rpmfusion, in F11 we managed to somehow sync the update (especially wanted by the vlc packager due to security fixes), but it seems I've been too apt in F10. This update is supposed to improve stability, not put F10 into rawhide mode, sadly it seems I misunderstood intentions of the vlc maintainer and pushed it too soon. Sorry about that.
(In reply to comment #9) > (In reply to comment #8) > > Errr... sorry but what is the point of breaking every package depending on > > libass.so.3 in a distribution released _almost one year ago_!? > Every package here means one package (vlc) in F10 and two packages (vlc and > gst-plugins-bad) in F11 You do not know that. When there is a "libFoo.3" package in a reasonably stable operating system release, then anyone (not just rpmfusion) should be able to build their own RPMs depending on it and assume it will not disappear in the future. Or did I miss some surprising Fedora policy?
(In reply to comment #10) > You do not know that. > Well, I do not know it for sure, but apps that are known to use libass are: mplayer (does carry it's own copy, but work is being done on switch to system libass) vlc (in rpmfusion) gst-plugins-bad (in rpmfusion, requires libass in >= F11) aegisub (not packaged for fedora yet, I have a package for it laying around, but it isn't stable enough to add it to Fedora) xbmc (existing package seems to have its own copy) avidemux (does not depend on system libass either) PunkGraphicsStream (does not seem to be available for linux) > When there is a "libFoo.3" package in a reasonably stable operating system > release, then anyone (not just rpmfusion) should be able to build their own > RPMs depending on it and assume it will not disappear in the future. Or did I > miss some surprising Fedora policy? AFAIK, Fedora policy is not to provide old libraries for the whole world, but it's unacceptable to bring broken deps to official repos and it's a good practice to not break deps with rpmfusion and livna (although, as they are third party, there can be short amount of time where the deps need to be broken). Either way, ABI breaking updates are discouraged but not prohibited.
(In reply to comment #11) > Well, I do not know it for sure, but apps that are known to use libass are: > vlc (in rpmfusion) [etc] Again, once you shipped a library in a stable release you cannot make assumptions about how people are going to use it. For instance VLC is becoming less and less reliable these days. So suppose I run on my _stable_ Fedora 10 system some VLC version that I do NOT want to upgrade, either because it happens to be less crashing than others or for whatever other reason I might have. Then your libass upgrade just broke my stable system, forcing me to upgrade. > AFAIK, Fedora policy is not to provide old libraries for the whole world, No more than a few days after shipping a release, its software has already started to become old. The whole point of any release is to stabilize on (reasonably) old software. This is admittedly a lot of effort. If you do not have enough resources to maintain stable releases, fine. But then make it very clear you do not. > Either way, ABI breaking updates are discouraged but not prohibited. This is disappointing.
vlc-core and gstreamer-plugins-bad are now cleaned up in rpmfusion. This kind of thing happens with the non-Fedora repos vis-a-vis Fedora Updates packages from time to time, and is one of the prices for running a cutting edge distro, IMO. If I put a premium on stability, I'd be running Centos or RHEL, and waiting longer for upstream packages than with Fedora.
> This kind of thing happens [...] and is one of the prices for > running a cutting edge distro It is not exactly intuitive that Fedora 10 is "cutting-edge" when Fedora 11 has been out for several months. Something to keep in mind...