[mythtv-users] Ticket #3031: Recording will not commence until a PMT is
knowledgejunkie at gmail.com
Thu Mar 15 18:10:45 UTC 2007
On 15/03/07, Axel Thimm <Axel.Thimm at atrpms.net> wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 15, 2007 at 01:51:37PM +0000, Nick Morrott wrote:
> > On 15/03/07, Peter Abplanalp <pta-myth at psaconsultants.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > ----- "Axel Thimm" <Axel.Thimm at ATrpms.net> wrote:
> > >
> > > > > *bleeding edge* install. Dangerous for a newbie like myself, I
> > > > > agree, and frustrating for all that listen to me carp.
> > > >
> > > > What makes you think this is "bleeding edge"? There are bleeding edge
> > > > 0.21 mythtv packages at ATrpms' bleeding repo, but the above is not
> > > > that.
> > >
> > > the op was merely responding to what a previous poster had told him, namely that he was running a "bleeding edge" package. turns out he isn't but he doesn't know the difference being a self proclaimed newbie. it seems the op is having a problem and thinks/thought the problem had to do with a particular bug. a respondent then told him that particular bug was for a particular svn version and made the assumption that the op was running that "bleeding edge" package.
> > It does not appear from what I can see that 12619 - if this is the
> > culprit - was back-ported to 0.20-fixes
> > (http://cvs.mythtv.org/trac/log/branches/release-0-20-fixes/mythtv).
> ATrpms stable builds went 12674 on Jan 30 2007 (0.20-151).
Please correct me if I'm making this up, but as I understand the
numbering, 12674 is just the number of the most current changeset
number of the trac repo as a whole, on the day the -fixes branch was
checked out. If the 12619 changeset (flagged as the bad one) has not
been backported, surely the *stable* 0.20-fixes branch is still free
of the bug?
The bug may be a blocker for 0.21, but 'you get what you pay for', you
can expect SVN to break at any time, you should use the stable branch
for maximum stability, et al.
> > i) Does the atrpms.net stable mythtv build still use the 0.20-fixes
> > branch?
> > Builds after 0.20-147 had their version bumped to 0.21-xxx
> No, they are still at 0.20-15x, what you refer to are packages in
> *bleeding*, which are cut from trunk.
> > - does this indicate a departure from building from 0.20-fixes and
> > using trunk instead?
> No, no departure, the packages coexist in different repos. stable
> follows 0.20 fixes, and bleeding the trunk.
As I previously thought!
> > ii) atrpms.net mythtv-trunk builds have exactly the same spec update
> > log (http://atrpms.net/dist/fc6/mythtv-trunk/mythtv-suite.spec.html).
> > Is this intentional?
> No, that's a bug in the web representation of the specfile, sorry for
> confusing you :(
Aha! Many thanks for the clarification - I was sure the stable builds
were still built from the -fixes branch but the specfile log did make
MythTV Official wiki:
MythTV users list archive:
"An investment in knowledge always pays the best interest." - Benjamin Franklin
More information about the mythtv-users