FYI, here is Christian's latest response. ~ Andres ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: "Christian Marillat" <maril...@free.fr> Date: Mar 23, 2012 11:09 AM Subject: Re: Duplicate Packages from Debian archive in DMO To: <dmo-discuss...@debian-multimedia.org>
Andres Mejia <amejia...@gmail.com> writes: > On Mar 22, 2012 11:29 AM, "Christian Marillat" <maril...@free.fr> wrote: >> >> Andres Mejia <amejia...@gmail.com> writes: >> >> > On Mar 21, 2012 2:26 AM, "Christian Marillat" <maril...@free.fr> wrote: >> >> >> >> Andres Mejia <amejia...@gmail.com> 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 < pkg-multimedia-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org> >> | 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 `---- [...] >> > 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
_______________________________________________ pkg-multimedia-maintainers mailing list pkg-multimedia-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pkg-multimedia-maintainers