On Mar 22, 2012 11:29 AM, "Christian Marillat" <[email protected]> wrote: > > Andres Mejia <[email protected]> writes: > > > On Mar 21, 2012 2:26 AM, "Christian Marillat" <[email protected]> wrote: > >> > >> Andres Mejia <[email protected]> writes: > > [...] > > >> Also I upload my packages more quickly than Debian. 3.99.0, 3.99.1 > >> 3.99.2 lame version have never been packaged by Debian. > > > > Ok. Why not directly upload these packages to Debian then? You are still a > > Debian > > developer right? > > > > In case you didn't know, I'm part of the team packaging multimedia related > > software > > for Debian. I'm also a DD. I help maintain lame, x264, and a list of other > > packages > > in Debian. > > > > I could use help in keeping lame and other packages up to date. I don't > > have time to > > upload new releases right when they're released. Would you be willing to > > help > > maintain packages in Debian? > > This isn't possible to change the soname library monthly because the > release team will probably reject monthly new soname. > > Also a new soname mean to rebuild all package who depends on the new > soname library because the old soname packages are removed in Debian.
We request library transitions in this case. Usually, the release team grants us these requests within a reasonable time frame. > Here, I can keep more than one soname library. > > A nice example is Debian released a new -120 package the same day I did > a -124 package. For x264, we're tracking the stable branch, currently at commit 01f7a33... You must be tracking master. In any case, Debian has experimental for these cases (providing a stable library package and an experimental one). You could be helping maintain x264 via unstable and experimental. > [...] > > >> Also some pakcages like vlc or xine are in my repository because Debian > >> added a conflicts against libavutil51 from my repository. > > [...] > > > I looked at the packaging for vlc and xine-lib. I don't see a place where a > > conflicts to any libav/ffmpeg libraries was added. > > ,---- > | $ apt-cache show libpostproc52 > | Package: libpostproc52 > | Source: libav > | Version: 4:0.8.1-1 > | Installed-Size: 403 > | Maintainer: Debian Multimedia Maintainers > <[email protected]> > | Architecture: i386 > | Depends: libavutil51 (>= 4:0.8.1-1) | libavutil-extra-51 (>= 4:0.8.1), > libavutil51 (<< 4:0.8.1-99) | libavutil-extra-51 (<< 4:0.8.1.99), libc6 (>= > 2.4) > `---- > > Could you explain the "libavutil51 (<< 4:0.8.1-99) | libavutil-extra-51 (<< > 4:0.8.1.99)" > in Depends field ? You're looking at the strict dependencies set only for the libav packages. The shlibs is generated again so that the Depends field above does not apply to any packages depending on the libav libraries. See vlc for example. $ apt-cache show vlc Package: vlc Version: 2.0.0-6 Installed-Size: 3459 Maintainer: Debian Multimedia Maintainers <[email protected]> Architecture: amd64 Replaces: vlc-nox (<< 1.1.5-1) Provides: mp3-decoder Depends: ttf-freefont, vlc-nox (= 2.0.0-6), libaa1 (>= 1.4p5), libavcodec53 (>= 4:0.8-1~) | libavcodec-extra-53 (>= 4:0.8-1~), libavutil51 (>= 4:0.8-1~) | libavutil-extra-51 (>= 4:0.8-1~), libc6 (>= 2.8), libfreetype6 (>= 2.2.1), libfribidi0 (>= 0.19.2), libgcc1 (>= 1:4.1.1), libgl1-mesa-glx | libgl1, libice6 (>= 1:1.0.0), libqtcore4 (>= 4:4.7.0~beta1), libqtgui4 (>= 4:4.7.0~beta1), libsdl-image1.2 (>= 1.2.10), libsdl1.2debian (>= 1.2.11), libsm6, libstdc++6 (>= 4.6), libtar0, libva-x11-1 (>> 1.0.14~), libva1 (>> 1.0.14~), libvlccore5 (>= 2.0.0), libx11-6, libxcb-composite0, libxcb-keysyms1 (>= 0.3.8), libxcb-randr0 (>= 1.1), libxcb-render0, libxcb-shape0, libxcb-shm0, libxcb-xfixes0, libxcb-xv0 (>= 1.2), libxcb1 (>= 1.6), libxext6, libxinerama1, libxpm4, zlib1g (>= 1:1.2.3.3) Recommends: vlc-plugin-notify (= 2.0.0-6), vlc-plugin-pulse (= 2.0.0-6), xdg-utils Suggests: videolan-doc Breaks: vlc-nox (<< 1.1.5-1) Description-en: multimedia player and streamer --- > > Speaking of libav/ffmpeg, the Debian archive has libav and not ffmpeg. I > > see that > > DMO is the reverse, shipping ffmpeg instead of libav. This of course > > resulted in > > many breakages between packages in Debian and packages in DMO. > > Which breakage ? Tell me what is exactly broken. Here are some of the more recent reported problems with using dmo. 1. http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=663893 2. http://lists.alioth.debian.org/pipermail/pkg-multimedia-maintainers/2012-March/025352.html # read the quoted message 3. http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2012/03/msg00129.html About 2 and 3, I can personally attest that this kind of breakage with using dmo does happen. Years ago when I first switched to Debian, I too thought that using dmo would be alright, seeing that it should only provide missing codecs and other software not available in Debian at the time. Long story short, after certain packages were upgraded because of dmo being activated on my system, I was left with numerous package conflicts and a missing desktop environment (in my case, kde). It was easier for me to reinstall my system than to try and revert the changes made by activating dmo. > > Is there any particular reason why DMO ships ffmpeg? > > Could you tell me why I should move to libav ? I'm packaging ffmpeg for > 11 years and I'm happy with that. If you're comfortable packaging ffmpeg, then packaging libav should be no problem to you at all. One of the main reasons cited for why Debian (and Ubuntu) went with libav was because it would offer more stability, something desirable with respect to maintaining a distro such as Debian. See this link. https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/technical-board/2011-May/000891.html > Christian > ~ Andres _______________________________________________ pkg-multimedia-maintainers mailing list [email protected] http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pkg-multimedia-maintainers
