-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Dominique Leuenberger wrote: > Pascal, > >>>> Reply on 03-01-2007 10:56:19 <<< >>> error: file /usr/lib/libmad.so.0.2.1 from install of >>> mad-0.15.1b-1.pm.3 conflicts with file from package >> libmad-0.15.1b-2.0 >> >> Where did you get "lidmad" from ? >> That's definitely not an RPM for SUSE Linux. > > I would say that is quiet an arrogant way or a reply. There is MORE > repositories on the market than PackMan and Guru. For some reasons, the > videolan project decided to have it's own control over RPMs for > openSUSE. Probably due to some reports from users which were not > satisfied with the packages, be it for features or for whatever. As you > might know, on their website was written that they were looking for a > packager... but for the meantime get the one from Dennis Quentin > (packman). This changed and there are now official rpms at videolan.org. > Just because something is not comming from packman and/or guru does NOT > Mean it is not an RPM for SUSE Linux.
That's absolutely not what I meant. The point is that the mad library used to be packaged as "mad" on SUSE (until SUSE 9.2) and that it is a rather well-known fact that Packman provides that package already -- at least to somewhat more experienced SUSE users. Packaging it as "libmad" is definitely a bad idea, as you can see from the OP. It should be packaged as "mad" instead. That is why I didn't think it's a SUSE package. Package names differ on distributions, especially Debian or Mandriva who have totally different naming conventions. I would really have expected "libmad" to be an RPM for Fedora or Mandriva. > The chosen name 'libmad' reflects exactly what is inside the package. Indeed, that's also how I would have called it, but for historical reasons the name of the package should be "mad", not "libmad". At the very least to play nice with the packages available in the Packman repository (it's not like only a few people are using Packman, isn't it). Packagers should also try to avoid duplicating existing packages as it usually creates more issues than anything else -- at least, generally. Sometimes there are good reasons to duplicate. Experienced SUSE packagers (some people from the Packman project) already package vlc and its dependencies for SUSE Linux, so why not just reference that repository on the videolan website. > So: start looking further than your nose. And help users in a > constructive way. Not everybody wants to have their system killed / in an > unsupported way by adding a repo that replaces system libs (like alsa > for example). There are users that would like to stay on the 'supported' > level. Uh, well, it's your choice whether you upgrade alsa or not. > Ever tried to report a bug against suse and then it comes that a system > lib was replaced? Forget about the report immediate. will most likely > end up in a 'works for me' . Don't misunderstand me: I appreciate the > huge collection of rpm's at packman and guru and I happen to install > some packages from there too. But under no circumstances I would like > to have these repos as full featured in my update repos. Well that's one thing. But IMO the right approach would have been to discuss it properly with the Packman team to see what the most appropriate solution would be. It would certainly make more sense to just copy the relevant Packman RPMs into a separate repository at videolan.org instead of building the packages from scratch again -- especially when they conflict with the most used community package repository. cheers - -- -o) Pascal Bleser http://linux01.gwdg.de/~pbleser/ /\\ <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> _\_v The more things change, the more they stay insane. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFFm5Onr3NMWliFcXcRArbbAJ9A95gp7y+fq81+KduSLpVfHT/wgwCeOxo8 /VvoPJjjWoI2DjbecLJRG0Q= =oUlM -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
