On Fri, Mar 23, 2012 at 11:09 AM, Christian Marillat <[email protected]> wrote: > Andres Mejia <[email protected]> writes: > >> 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 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. > > vlc-nox, libxine2-ffmpeg and libxine1-ffmpeg depends on libpostproc52 > and installing libpostproc52 from Debian remove these packages : > > ,---- > | LANG=C sudo apt-get install libpostproc52=4:0.8.1-1 > | Reading package lists... Done > | Building dependency tree > | Reading state information... Done > | The following packages were automatically installed and are no longer > | required: > | libva-x11-1 libxcb-keysyms1 libresid-builder0c2a libxcb-xv0 libtar0 > | libxcb-xfixes0 libcddb2 libwebp2 libdvbpsi7 libdirac-decoder0 libqtcore4 > | libupnp3 libxcb-randr0 libxcb-composite0 libiso9660-7 libsidplay2 > | libqtgui4 libaudio2 libvcdinfo0 libebml3 libmatroska5 libsdl-image1.2 > | Use 'apt-get autoremove' to remove them. > | The following extra packages will be installed: > | libavcodec-extra-53 libavutil-extra-51 > | Suggested packages: > | libfaad0 > | The following packages will be REMOVED: > | ffmpeg libavcodec53 libavdevice53 libavfilter2 libavformat53 libavutil51 > | libswresample0 libswscale2 > `----
Yes, this is because of the internal shlib dependencies between the libav shared libraries and programs. This was done to ensure the libav/ffmpeg libraries installed in a system are from the same version. Also, the libav and ffmpeg libraries are incompatible with each other, so the strict dependencies prevents this kind of breakage as well. > [...] > >>> > 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 > > The latest comment in the bug report is from the Debian maintainer : > > http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=663893#139 > > ,---- > | On a test installation running debian-multimedia here moc works fine, > `---- > > Works also fine for me. > >> 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). > > 2 thread started with a newbie Debian user who don't understand how Debian > packaging and just saying as I'm unable to downgrade a packages dmo > shouldn't exist. > > 3 is message from angry people who are only saying dmo is crap > without doing any example. > > [...] > >>> 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 > > Already read. I think here is a conflict of interest. I'm sure if > Reinhard Tartler wasn't the libav release manager, we are not talking > about libav in Debian but instead ffmpeg. > > Christian > -- ~ Andres _______________________________________________ pkg-multimedia-maintainers mailing list [email protected] http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pkg-multimedia-maintainers
