Reinhard Tartler escribió:
>>> the mplayer package. Currently the situation is this:
>>> - mplayer-nogui ships a copy of mplayer that does not depend on X11 and
>>> related libraries. It is the commongly used variant of mplayer
>>> - mplayer contains mplayer-gui, which is known to cause many problems
>>> that are known to upstream but they are not interested in fixing
>>> them. Have a look at the upstream archives and the bugs filed in
>>> launchpad against this
>>> - the 'mplayer' package ships a .desktop file with mime-type
>>> associations, which makes people use mplayer-gui from filemanagers
>>> like nautilus and become the impression that mplayer-gui was actually
>>> supposed to work.
>>> - there are various other really great 3rd party frontends for mplayer,
>>> smplayer seems to be most popular, but there are also others like
>>> kmplayer that work much better than the original mplayer-gui variant.
>>> fabrice_sp and I discussed the possibility of dropping the mplayer-gui
>>> variant and ship non-X11 version of mplayer only. If nobody objects, I
>>> intend to merge the mplayer-nogui into the mplayer package, and provide
>>> the nongui variant only. The next upload will probably close a large
>>> amount of bugs in launchpad then.
>>> If someone thinks that this was a bad idea, now would be a great time to
>>> speak up!
>> I am against dropping gmplayer (the gui for mplayer).
Why keeping a package that upstream is not maintaining?
> I guess the 'normal' upgrade path would remove gmplayer by default and
> have users explicitly install the package, right?
IMHO, the upgrade should keep some gui installed: so perhaps we should
have a recommends, or suggest, on smplayer in mplayer package, so the
upgrade path would be:
- mplayer -> smplayer
- mplayer-nogui -> mplayer ? Not sure it's a good idea to actually have
the same package name with different content, and a strange upgrade path
I think we should avoid "I don't have a mplayer gui anymore" bug reports.
My 2 cents,
pkg-multimedia-maintainers mailing list