On Sun, Aug 17, 2014 at 12:47 AM, Jean-Baptiste Kempf <j...@videolan.org> wrote: > Hello, > > On 16 Aug, Reinhard Tartler wrote : >> I'm currently fighting with upgrading to VLC 2.2, and noticed that a >> lot of plugins were shuffled around. I noticed that I'm spending way >> to much time figuring out what plugin should go to vlc and what plugin >> should go to vlc-nox. I wonder if having this split is really worth >> the effort. How would you feel with just dropping vlc-nox and just be >> done with it? >> >> I believe that upstream doesn't care that much about this, because >> otherwise I'd expect the Makefiles to be a bit more helpful with >> determining this. J-B, I'd like you to confirm if I'm right here. > > I personnaly do not care, and think you could drop those splits. > If libavcodec depends on X11, having a vlc-noX without libavcodec is of > limited usage.
Since libavcodec nowadays depends on x11 libraries because of vaapi/vdpau, I tend to agree, but I am still wondering if we could do better than throwing everything into a big tarball. In any case, I've managed to update the installation lists by diffing the buildlogs from a 2.1.5 to a 2.2.0-pre1 build, and the resulting vlc-nox package still doesn't depend on libx11. However, it turns out that libvlccore dropped some symbols and needs a SONAME bump: https://mailman.videolan.org/pipermail/vlc-devel/2014-August/099358.html. Once we have a -pre2, we can proceed with uploading to unstable, I guess. Reinhard -- regards, Reinhard _______________________________________________ pkg-multimedia-maintainers mailing list pkg-multimedia-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pkg-multimedia-maintainers