media-libs/openjpeg: add 2.5.0-r1, fix includedir

[laumann]

Closes: https://bugs.gentoo.org/694776
Closes: https://bugs.gentoo.org/847058
Signed-off-by: Thomas Bracht Laumann Jespersen t@laumann.xyz

[laumann]

Once again, I don't know if this should be a revbump :-)

[gentoo-repo-qa-bot]

Pull request CI report

Report generated at: 2022-05-23 11:46 UTC
Newest commit scanned: 26aff99
Status: ✅ good

There are existing issues already. Please look into the report to make sure none of them affect the packages in question:
https://qa-reports.gentoo.org/output/gentoo-ci/8e04ab8f0b/output.html

[pinkflames]

Once again, I don't know if this should be a revbump :-)

Yes, it needs to be a revbump, so that the fix gets deployed to the people who already have the broken version.

[laumann]

Once again, I don't know if this should be a revbump :-)

Yes, it needs to be a revbump, so that the fix gets deployed to the people who already have the broken version.

Alright, thanks, revbumping.

[laumann]

@pinkflames OK, pushed a revbump - I assume it's OK to edit the existing patch file, right? Would it make sense to drop 2.5.0 as soon as 2.5.0-r1 is in?

[pinkflames]

In general it's okay to edit files in FILESDIR (as long as you do not break older ebuilds still in the git tree). I assume but can't say for sure that it's okay to edit patches, too.

Yes, there is no point in keeping the old 2.5.0 ebuild around because it now produces the same build as -r1, so it should either get removed or renamed to -r1 (your choice how you do it).

Thank you for doing all this for the libopenjpeg ebuild.

Update: @laumann, you might want to also add Closes: https://bugs.gentoo.org/847058 so that the issue which tracks multiple reported build failures in consumer projects gets closed when this PR gets merged.

[gentoo-repo-qa-bot]

Pull request CI report

Report generated at: 2022-05-23 12:36 UTC
Newest commit scanned: a6b6e89
Status: ✅ good

There are existing issues already. Please look into the report to make sure none of them affect the packages in question:
https://qa-reports.gentoo.org/output/gentoo-ci/03a0560b4b/output.html

[laumann]

In general it's okay to edit files in FILESDIR (as long as you do not break older ebuilds still in the git tree). I assume but can't say for sure that it's okay to edit patches, too.

So in this case it wouldn't break anything new, as the 2.5.0 ebuild is the only user of that particular patch.

Yes, there is no point in keeping the old 2.5.0 ebuild around because it now produces the same build as -r1, so it should either get removed or renamed to -r1 (your choice how you do it).

I'll drop 2.5.0 then.

Thank you for doing all this for the libopenjpeg ebuild.

Thanks for reviewing :-)

Update: @laumann, you might want to also add Closes: https://bugs.gentoo.org/847058 so that the issue which tracks multiple reported build failures in consumer projects gets closed when this PR gets merged.

Wasn't aware of that bug, thanks! I'll add it in.

[pinkflames]

I forgot you'll need to rename this PR in GItHub and append [please reassign] so that the bot knows to rescan your commits and picks up the new Closes tag. Sorry about that.

It might also be best to squash your two commits into one, since there's no risk of needing to drop or revert only one of them in the future.

[laumann]

I forgot you'll need to rename this PR in GItHub and append [please reassign] so that the bot knows to rescan your commits and picks up the new Closes tag. Sorry about that.

OK, good to know, thanks!

It might also be best to squash your two commits into one, since there's no risk of needing to drop or revert only one of them in the future.

Will do. I'll squash, then append [please reassign].

[gentoo-bot]

Pull Request assignment

Submitter: @laumann
Areas affected: ebuilds
Packages affected: media-libs/openjpeg

media-libs/openjpeg: @laumann, @gentoo/proxy-maint

Linked bugs

Bugs linked: 694776, 847058

---

In order to force reassignment and/or bug reference scan, please append [please reassign] to the pull request title.

Docs: Code of Conduct ● Copyright policy (expl.) ● Devmanual ● GitHub PRs ● Proxy-maint guide

[pinkflames]

Technically it should probably be Bug: https://bugs.gentoo.org/694776 rather than Closes because that particular issue is about something else originally. Though I also observe that the version against which it was filed about is no longer in the tree, so you could just close that bug as obsolete now, unless someone can reproduce it with a newer version (or you can just keep the git tag as Closes which will mark that issue upon merge as fixed rather than obsolete).

[gentoo-repo-qa-bot]

Pull request CI report

Report generated at: 2022-05-23 13:21 UTC
Newest commit scanned: 48a5b77
Status: ✅ good

There are existing issues already. Please look into the report to make sure none of them affect the packages in question:
https://qa-reports.gentoo.org/output/gentoo-ci/dfb6b11659/output.html

[laumann]

Technically it should probably be Bug: https://bugs.gentoo.org/694776

It's all in a git commit --amend :-) pushed.

[gentoo-repo-qa-bot]

Pull request CI report

Report generated at: 2022-05-23 14:21 UTC
Newest commit scanned: 9d46074
Status: ✅ good

There are existing issues already. Please look into the report to make sure none of them affect the packages in question:
https://qa-reports.gentoo.org/output/gentoo-ci/fc2b6f1669/output.html

[pinkflames]

Looks good to me. Thanks for your effort.

[laumann]

Looks good to me. Thanks for your effort.

Thanks! And thank you for the feedback.