Re: mplayer, the time has come

[A Mennucc]

MJ Ray wrote: Andrea Mennucc wrote: I have uploaded a new version of the 'mplayer' package for Debian, namely version 1.0pre6-1 I have reviewed this package, but I've not tried building it. Here are my first comments, split under your headings. --- HISTORY and CURRENT STATUS=20 The README.Debian refers to diffs on a site tonelli.sns.it but I couldn't find them. Would running the cvs-changelog and storing the output help to comply with the letter as well as spirit of the GPL? debianizer - isn't there a debian/rules way to do this now? no way at all suppose that I do this: $ tar xjf MPlayer-1.0pre6.tar.bz2 $ mv MPlayer-1.0pre6  mplayer-1.0pre6 $ tar czf mplayer_1.0pre6.orig.tar.gz at this point I am dead: the file mplayer_1.0pre6.orig.tar.gz will contain DeCSS code, and nothing in debian/rules can delete this code from mplayer_1.0pre6.orig.tar.gz libmpcodecs - missing copyright or are these all but one mplayer creations? they are mplayer creations (at the best of my knowledge) TOOLS - all of this is deleted in response to a reply about one file, or do they really intend them all to be non-free? when I looked in it 2 years ago, I saw that many files did not have proper copyright statements in them. Since I am not packaging anything from TOOLS, I took the radical step to delete them debian/scripts/win32codecs.sh - does this depend on non-free software? nope it will download and install codecs that are non-free; but it is the user choice (and responsibility) to do that. This is no different than what libdvdread3 proposed wrt decss librari --- POPULAR SUPPORT While it's nice to see that developers are so keen for mplayer to be worked on, I hope that someone is directing them towards the historical record and the work which still needs to be done. I only saw it happen in one of the cited threads. I think that explaining this to everyone is one of the main challenges for the mplayer package maintainers and you should add a bit more about it to README.Debian, mentioning investigation_0.90 (does that get included in the /usr/share/doc?) investigation_0.90 is outdated: after 0.90 the upstream authors did their own investigation and prepared the 'Copyright' file --- HISTORY Is it really necessary to fan dead flames by calling them such in the README.Debian? Let bygones be bygones? you sure are right a.