On 27 June 2012 08:58, Dave Plater <[email protected]> wrote: > When I discovered that the future xine-lib had a hard dependancy on > libavutil and that libavutil wasn't encumbered by patent problems > (August last year) I decided on a static lib built with xine due to > libavutil being part of ffmpeg. > The only safe way that I can see with a dynamic libavutil in factory > is for packman to also separate libavutil and build a linked package > otherwise it will be a problem to keep them in sync. The Packman > ffmpeg maintainer will need to maintain openSUSE libavutil as well. I > normally run multimedia:apps with libxine-codecs from Packman. Ffmpeg > tends to change frequently and may cause unforseen problems if > libavutil gets out of sync. libxine2 itself needs libavutil the rest > of the ffmpeg libs are used by plugin builds. IMHO the xine-lib > developers should include a static libavutil. Have a look at Debian > and Fedora for clues.
This is far from a "specific case". And AFAIK Debian packages the full libav and Fedora doesn't package libxine 1.2, what clues should I look for there? I guess the basic question is: why is this different to the libxine case? Packman doesn't make any effort to keep it in sync with openSUSE version. And it even packages a binary incompatible version. What's more, Packman already packages two binary incompatible versions of libavutil! _______________________________________________ Packman mailing list [email protected] http://lists.links2linux.de/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/packman
