On 2016-05-12 09:16:15, Santiago Ruano Rincón wrote: > Also, Antoine has filled a bug [1] regarding libmatroska and libebml, > but DLA-420-1 and DLA-438-1 addressed those packages. Antoine, why they > should be tagged as not-supported?
Uh! I didn't see those go through, I'm surprised... My rationale was exposed here: https://lists.debian.org/debian-lts/2016/02/msg00014.html Basically, ffmpeg was marked as unsupported, and matroska/libebml were seen as related as they are a founding block, like ffmpeg/libav, for media applications: if libav or ffmpeg is unsupported, basically everything else falls apart and matroska support is somewhat less relevant. So I would say that matroska/libebml is dependent on libav support. But I'm no multimedia team expert, others may have more competent advice. A. -- >From the age of uniformity, from the age of solitude, from the age of Big Brother, from the age of doublethink - greetings! - Winston Smith, 1984
