>I've got a bad feeling about this, that could add up to a significant >number of downloads. The mplayer tarball weighs in at 10MB. >Having said that, I've put an example here if people want to try it: >http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/~andy/mplayer-15-03-12.tar.xz >We could make subversion and git required dependencies and use them to >download the source. I prefer we keep tarballs on our servers. Considering the horde of dependencies for mplayer, I would prefer not expanding its numbers.
>Another option is to just remove Mplayer from the book. If they can't >make regular stable releases available they're not really ready for >primetime are they? Git and Subversion are fine for developers but the >average user should be able to download a recent tarball... mutter, >grumble I strongly disagree to remove it from the book. It is an excellent feature-rich video player and more ressource-efficient than VLC. I have been using the svn-version for several months with no crashes/problems whatsoever.Agreed, a normal release paradigm on their part would be prefereable, but I deem the svn version stable enough for the book. >I've just followed your lead and got the same results as you. It >doesn't build with ffmpeg-0.10 and even if it did, it doesn't link to >shared ffmpeg libraries, it statically links ffmpeg into the mplayer >binary so the advantage of shared libraries (reusing code, smaller >binaries) is lost. Having said that, it seems to have linked to loads >of other libraries which configure autodetected. And it works. I gave >up on Mplayer about a year/18 months ago, it was just too crashy to be >usable. It seems better now. Yes, reading some threads on the web, it seems impossible to build it using a shared ffmpeg. My mplayer (stripped) binary is around 14 MB, an acceptable size with a statically linked ffmpeg. -Ragnar- -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/blfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
