Description of problem: While libdvdcss is in tainted repos, libfaad is not. Should users still use PLF for that? Thanks Reproducible: Steps to Reproduce:
I have built it (and rebuilt xinelib with faad enabled) locally but haven't imported it yet. We should have some policy on tainted packages ASAP! Only one month till version freeze fter all. Oliver
CC: (none) => oliver.bgrAssignee: bugsquad => ennael1
well we need to be able to build different version of packages including tainted deps or not. It's still in todo list
I don't understand. Is it the build system who needs work to allow several worksflows? For PLF, this was done in a separate machine, maybe we could do the same way to to get tainted before version freeze?
It's no problem with "purely tainted" packages like libfaad, those can be built quite easily on our bs. The problem is packages, we need twice, one build only using non-tainted packages and one using the tainted packages as well, e.g. mplayer, xinelib, vlc and so on. We have to find a way that allows the bs to build both packages at the same time from the same src.rpm. Oliver
*** Bug 748 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
CC: (none) => yleny
*** Bug 699 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
CC: (none) => davidwhodgins
Depends on: (none) => 338
Any progress?
CC: (none) => LpSolit
See bug 338 (which this report depends on)
CC: (none) => thierry.vignaud
CC: (none) => sebastien.guerin.news
uploaded to tainted
Status: NEW => RESOLVEDCC: (none) => pterjanResolution: (none) => FIXED