OpenGL/GLX dual link error in VLC 2.2.0 git/master via MacPorts on OS X

[Jean-Baptiste Kempf]

On 07 Feb, René J.V. Bertin wrote :
> On Saturday February 07 2015 14:57:52 Jean-Baptiste Kempf wrote:
> 
> >> Not "yet"; if I'm right, their layout scheme helps them avoid issues like the one I ran into, so they have less reason to defend their way of doing things against yours.
> >
> >Sure, but then don't complain that we're the ones at fault.
> 
> MacPorts is not at fault either. Either you accept that we have a use case that you want to support and we try to come up with a good compromise that requires as little changes to the existing build system as possible, or we figure out how to throw together our own patch...

Yes, it is at fault. Hacking our buildsystem, and then attacking us,
because of that, is wrong.

> >He claimed that sedding our buildsystem was correct.
> 
> Sedding, as in using sed to change things? That is indeed correct in certain well defined use cases to adapt a project to the MacPorts build system.

This is not true. Clearly not. It is incorrect in all cases.
Where you INSTALL, post building, can be patched, sure, not sedding the
list of modules.

> Usually though that would only be to make changes that depend on the user's choice of prefix and thus cannot be handled only with static patches.

VLC supports --prefix since a long time.

> >So what? He could be the kernel core developer or Linux Torvalds, that wouldn't
> >change a thing. He behaved wrongly, and then complained we were
> >insulting him, and lied about his patches not being taken in accounts.
> 
> You must know that most of the time when an internet exchange between adults (with all their vaccines etc :)) escalates to insults there usually are misunderstandings at play, for which all parties involved share responsibilities, and that often are due to or aggravated by cultural differences and/or mastery of English. And that's all the more true when the exchange is between developers who are all convinced of their own approaches and ideas and know they shouldn't give in too easily when defending new and "deviant" things in a bug report or review request.

No, I don't.
We have a very strict policy against insults. And there is a clear line
there. And you cannot claim someone insulted you if he did not.
Who's right and wrong is different.

> >One of them is amazing, by patching a clear and on-purpose limitation of
> >linking to libavcodec 56...
> 
> I don't see a patch that does anything like that among the ones included.
> What limitation?

https://trac.macports.org/browser/trunk/dports/multimedia/VLC/files/patch-ffmpeg-2.4.diff

With my kindest regards,

-- 
Jean-Baptiste Kempf
http://www.jbkempf.com/ - +33 672 704 734
Sent from my Electronic Device