Re: [SCM] FFmpeg packaging branch, master.snapshot, updated. debian/0.6-1-22-g954f195
Am 29.06.2010 17:44, schrieb Felipe Sateler: If the objective is to use at least the released version (and not a svn snapshot), I think the correct approach would be to use 4:0.6.0~, and not include the debian revision. This, however, would mean changing the version from 4:0.6-1 to 4:0.6.0-1 I disagree for two reasons. First, because upstream has released 0.6, not 0.6.0, and we should not second-guess their versioning scheme. I am all against introducing artificial version numbers to circumvent packaging issues. This just causes confusion. Second, because we have already released a 0.6-1 package and we expect the library interface to be stable from this very release on, not any other, and we express this via the shlibs information. In other words, what builds against 0.6-1 should depend on at least 0.6-1 (or a backport of it). - Fabian ___ pkg-multimedia-maintainers mailing list pkg-multimedia-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org http://lists.alioth.debian.org/mailman/listinfo/pkg-multimedia-maintainers
Re: [SCM] FFmpeg packaging branch, master.snapshot, updated. debian/0.6-1-22-g954f195
On Wed, Jun 30, 2010 at 09:32:07AM +0200, Fabian Greffrath wrote: Am 29.06.2010 19:23, schrieb Jonas Smedegaard: Correct. As the very first sentence of its manpage says: Check and list dependencies of development library packages He? IMHO this is neither right nor common practice. The dependencies of development library packages are not necessarily the -dev packages of the libraries that the package in question is linked to. I mean, if libfoo0 is linked against liba0, libb0 and libc0, then liba-dev, libb-dev and libc-dev are *not* necessarily dependencies of libfoo-dev! Imagine what this would mean for e.g. libavcodec-dev. Things are different for static libraries, though. To find out hard dependencies for shared libraries development packages, you should (1) check which headers are included by the public API, (2) check which libraries are referenced by the .pc files and (3) check which libraries are referenced by the .la files. Thanks for the input. Would be nice if you could file it as a bugreport against d-shlibs. Kind regards, - Jonas -- * Jonas Smedegaard - idealist Internet-arkitekt * Tlf.: +45 40843136 Website: http://dr.jones.dk/ [x] quote me freely [ ] ask before reusing [ ] keep private signature.asc Description: Digital signature ___ pkg-multimedia-maintainers mailing list pkg-multimedia-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org http://lists.alioth.debian.org/mailman/listinfo/pkg-multimedia-maintainers
Re: [SCM] FFmpeg packaging branch, master.snapshot, updated. debian/0.6-1-22-g954f195
On Wed, Jun 30, 2010 at 07:41:31AM +0200, Reinhard Tartler wrote: On Tue, Jun 29, 2010 at 23:16:52 (CEST), Felipe Sateler wrote: On Tue, Jun 29, 2010 at 17:08, Reinhard Tartler siret...@tauware.de wrote: On Tue, Jun 29, 2010 at 17:44:03 (CEST), Felipe Sateler wrote: On Tue, Jun 29, 2010 at 08:14, Fabian Greffrath fab...@greffrath.com wrote: Am 29.06.2010 13:39, schrieb Reinhard Tartler: I don't have a strong opinion here, but I feel 4:0.6~ is good enough for this. If you want to change it, go ahead. I'll change it, just to make sure... If the objective is to use at least the released version (and not a svn snapshot), I think the correct approach would be to use 4:0.6.0~, and not include the debian revision. This, however, would mean changing the version from 4:0.6-1 to 4:0.6.0-1 this looks wrong to me. what's the problem with 4:0.6~? That you intended to restrict the dependencies to the first upstream 0.6 released package, but you actually loosened to any previous svn checkout of the 0.6 branch. oh, I see. Indeed. In that case, Fabian is right with 4:0.6-1~ This of course looses against 4:0.6-0ubuntu1, but that's hardly a problem that we need to consider here anyway. Correct. That -0xyz1 Debian version string is the oldfashioned style. Newstyle backport string would look like this: -1~xyz1 and work properly with the string proposed by Fabian. If Ubuntu is still using the old style, you (or someone else reading this and using Ubuntu) might suggest them to change to the new one. Kind regards, - Jonas -- * Jonas Smedegaard - idealist Internet-arkitekt * Tlf.: +45 40843136 Website: http://dr.jones.dk/ [x] quote me freely [ ] ask before reusing [ ] keep private signature.asc Description: Digital signature ___ pkg-multimedia-maintainers mailing list pkg-multimedia-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org http://lists.alioth.debian.org/mailman/listinfo/pkg-multimedia-maintainers
Re: [SCM] FFmpeg packaging branch, master.snapshot, updated. debian/0.6-1-22-g954f195
On Wed, Jun 30, 2010 at 11:29:47 (CEST), Jonas Smedegaard wrote: On Wed, Jun 30, 2010 at 07:41:31AM +0200, Reinhard Tartler wrote: On Tue, Jun 29, 2010 at 23:16:52 (CEST), Felipe Sateler wrote: On Tue, Jun 29, 2010 at 17:08, Reinhard Tartler siret...@tauware.de wrote: On Tue, Jun 29, 2010 at 17:44:03 (CEST), Felipe Sateler wrote: On Tue, Jun 29, 2010 at 08:14, Fabian Greffrath fab...@greffrath.com wrote: Am 29.06.2010 13:39, schrieb Reinhard Tartler: I don't have a strong opinion here, but I feel 4:0.6~ is good enough for this. If you want to change it, go ahead. I'll change it, just to make sure... If the objective is to use at least the released version (and not a svn snapshot), I think the correct approach would be to use 4:0.6.0~, and not include the debian revision. This, however, would mean changing the version from 4:0.6-1 to 4:0.6.0-1 this looks wrong to me. what's the problem with 4:0.6~? That you intended to restrict the dependencies to the first upstream 0.6 released package, but you actually loosened to any previous svn checkout of the 0.6 branch. oh, I see. Indeed. In that case, Fabian is right with 4:0.6-1~ This of course looses against 4:0.6-0ubuntu1, but that's hardly a problem that we need to consider here anyway. Correct. That -0xyz1 Debian version string is the oldfashioned style. Newstyle backport string would look like this: -1~xyz1 and work properly with the string proposed by Fabian. If Ubuntu is still using the old style, you (or someone else reading this and using Ubuntu) might suggest them to change to the new one. yes, ubuntu is still using it, but not for backports. -0ubuntu1 is used in ubuntu if a package is being uploaded in advance of debian. I therefore will not propose this change. for backports, ubuntu uses -1~suitenameN as well. -- Gruesse/greetings, Reinhard Tartler, KeyID 945348A4 ___ pkg-multimedia-maintainers mailing list pkg-multimedia-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org http://lists.alioth.debian.org/mailman/listinfo/pkg-multimedia-maintainers
Re: [SCM] FFmpeg packaging branch, master.snapshot, updated. debian/0.6-1-22-g954f195
On Wed, Jun 30, 2010 at 02:07:38PM +0200, Reinhard Tartler wrote: On Wed, Jun 30, 2010 at 11:29:47 (CEST), Jonas Smedegaard wrote: On Wed, Jun 30, 2010 at 07:41:31AM +0200, Reinhard Tartler wrote: On Tue, Jun 29, 2010 at 23:16:52 (CEST), Felipe Sateler wrote: On Tue, Jun 29, 2010 at 17:08, Reinhard Tartler siret...@tauware.de wrote: what's the problem with 4:0.6~? That you intended to restrict the dependencies to the first upstream 0.6 released package, but you actually loosened to any previous svn checkout of the 0.6 branch. oh, I see. Indeed. In that case, Fabian is right with 4:0.6-1~ This of course looses against 4:0.6-0ubuntu1, but that's hardly a problem that we need to consider here anyway. Correct. That -0xyz1 Debian version string is the oldfashioned style. Newstyle backport string would look like this: -1~xyz1 and work properly with the string proposed by Fabian. If Ubuntu is still using the old style, you (or someone else reading this and using Ubuntu) might suggest them to change to the new one. yes, ubuntu is still using it, but not for backports. -0ubuntu1 is used in ubuntu if a package is being uploaded in advance of debian. I therefore will not propose this change. for backports, ubuntu uses -1~suitenameN as well. Ah, ok. Thanks for clarifying. Agreed, we need not care about such ahead-of-Debian uploads. - Jonas -- * Jonas Smedegaard - idealist Internet-arkitekt * Tlf.: +45 40843136 Website: http://dr.jones.dk/ [x] quote me freely [ ] ask before reusing [ ] keep private signature.asc Description: Digital signature ___ pkg-multimedia-maintainers mailing list pkg-multimedia-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org http://lists.alioth.debian.org/mailman/listinfo/pkg-multimedia-maintainers
Re: [SCM] FFmpeg packaging branch, master.snapshot, updated. debian/0.6-1-22-g954f195
Am 29.06.2010 10:15, schrieb Jonas Smedegaard: -SHLIBS_VERSION := 4:0.6~svn20100505-1 +SHLIBS_VERSION := 4:0.6~ Above is not a tightening, but a loosing up, I believe. Technically, yes. I think 4:0.6-1~ would be better. - Fabian ___ pkg-multimedia-maintainers mailing list pkg-multimedia-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org http://lists.alioth.debian.org/mailman/listinfo/pkg-multimedia-maintainers
Re: [SCM] FFmpeg packaging branch, master.snapshot, updated. debian/0.6-1-22-g954f195
Am 29.06.2010 12:38, schrieb Jonas Smedegaard: Hmm, just curious (I won't waste time on discussing further): is it tightening by some other aspect than technical? It's philosophical, but by removing the svn revision, which points to a date a few weeks before the release, from the version number you actually get closer to the release. Reinhard, let's do the next upload with 4:0.6-1~ and be done with it. BTW, I've got to other questions: - Shouldn't we upload another revision of rtmpdump ASAP with librtmp-dev depending on libgnutls-dev and remove this build-depends from ffmpeg? - What does make debian/patches gbp-pq friendly actually mean? - Fabian ___ pkg-multimedia-maintainers mailing list pkg-multimedia-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org http://lists.alioth.debian.org/mailman/listinfo/pkg-multimedia-maintainers
Re: [SCM] FFmpeg packaging branch, master.snapshot, updated. debian/0.6-1-22-g954f195
On Tue, Jun 29, 2010 at 01:05:18PM +0200, Fabian Greffrath wrote: Am 29.06.2010 12:38, schrieb Jonas Smedegaard: Hmm, just curious (I won't waste time on discussing further): is it tightening by some other aspect than technical? It's philosophical, but by removing the svn revision, which points to a date a few weeks before the release, from the version number you actually get closer to the release. Thanks - I get it now :-) - Shouldn't we upload another revision of rtmpdump ASAP with librtmp-dev depending on libgnutls-dev and remove this build-depends from ffmpeg? I recommend to use d-shlibs to auto-resolve library dependencies. - What does make debian/patches gbp-pq friendly actually mean? I wondered about the same :-) - Jonas -- * Jonas Smedegaard - idealist Internet-arkitekt * Tlf.: +45 40843136 Website: http://dr.jones.dk/ [x] quote me freely [ ] ask before reusing [ ] keep private signature.asc Description: Digital signature ___ pkg-multimedia-maintainers mailing list pkg-multimedia-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org http://lists.alioth.debian.org/mailman/listinfo/pkg-multimedia-maintainers
Re: [SCM] FFmpeg packaging branch, master.snapshot, updated. debian/0.6-1-22-g954f195
On Tue, Jun 29, 2010 at 13:05:18 (CEST), Fabian Greffrath wrote: Am 29.06.2010 12:38, schrieb Jonas Smedegaard: Hmm, just curious (I won't waste time on discussing further): is it tightening by some other aspect than technical? It's philosophical, but by removing the svn revision, which points to a date a few weeks before the release, from the version number you actually get closer to the release. yes Reinhard, let's do the next upload with 4:0.6-1~ and be done with it. I don't have a strong opinion here, but I feel 4:0.6~ is good enough for this. If you want to change it, go ahead. BTW, I've got to other questions: - Shouldn't we upload another revision of rtmpdump ASAP with librtmp-dev depending on libgnutls-dev and remove this build-depends from ffmpeg? uploading rtmpdump now sounds good, reuploading ffmpeg doesn't seem important enough to me. - What does make debian/patches gbp-pq friendly actually mean? I was playing with gbp-pq import and gbp-pq export, and it seems to enforce it's own scheme of naming patches. Unfortunatly, it doesn't seem to work out too well for me so far :-( -- Gruesse/greetings, Reinhard Tartler, KeyID 945348A4 ___ pkg-multimedia-maintainers mailing list pkg-multimedia-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org http://lists.alioth.debian.org/mailman/listinfo/pkg-multimedia-maintainers
Re: [SCM] FFmpeg packaging branch, master.snapshot, updated. debian/0.6-1-22-g954f195
On Tue, Jun 29, 2010 at 13:33:19 (CEST), Jonas Smedegaard wrote: - Shouldn't we upload another revision of rtmpdump ASAP with librtmp-dev depending on libgnutls-dev and remove this build-depends from ffmpeg? I recommend to use d-shlibs to auto-resolve library dependencies. AFAIUI, this does way too much for this problem. Can d-shlibs be used standalone, i.e., without adding it as build-dep and integrating it to debian/rules? -- Gruesse/greetings, Reinhard Tartler, KeyID 945348A4 ___ pkg-multimedia-maintainers mailing list pkg-multimedia-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org http://lists.alioth.debian.org/mailman/listinfo/pkg-multimedia-maintainers
Re: [SCM] FFmpeg packaging branch, master.snapshot, updated. debian/0.6-1-22-g954f195
On Tue, Jun 29, 2010 at 01:39:40PM +0200, Reinhard Tartler wrote: On Tue, Jun 29, 2010 at 13:05:18 (CEST), Fabian Greffrath wrote: Reinhard, let's do the next upload with 4:0.6-1~ and be done with it. I don't have a strong opinion here, but I feel 4:0.6~ is good enough for this. If you want to change it, go ahead. nitpicking I suggest to then state in changelog that it is loosened, not tightened, as I believe most users expect the technical aspect when reading such notes. /nitpicking - What does make debian/patches gbp-pq friendly actually mean? I was playing with gbp-pq import and gbp-pq export, and it seems to enforce it's own scheme of naming patches. Unfortunatly, it doesn't seem to work out too well for me so far :-( I would expect gbp-pq to overwrite existing patch series file, and thus not play nice with any patches added through different methods. Interesting if it can actually play nice with other routines. (as might be obvious from above, I have not yet tried gbp-pq myself). - Jonas -- * Jonas Smedegaard - idealist Internet-arkitekt * Tlf.: +45 40843136 Website: http://dr.jones.dk/ [x] quote me freely [ ] ask before reusing [ ] keep private signature.asc Description: Digital signature ___ pkg-multimedia-maintainers mailing list pkg-multimedia-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org http://lists.alioth.debian.org/mailman/listinfo/pkg-multimedia-maintainers
Re: [SCM] FFmpeg packaging branch, master.snapshot, updated. debian/0.6-1-22-g954f195
Am 29.06.2010 14:26, schrieb Jonas Smedegaard: I suggest to then state in changelog that it is loosened, not tightened, as I believe most users expect the technical aspect when reading such notes. I't not even mentioned in debian/changelog and I have just corrected the shlibs version in git, so it's in the next package revision. - Fabian ___ pkg-multimedia-maintainers mailing list pkg-multimedia-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org http://lists.alioth.debian.org/mailman/listinfo/pkg-multimedia-maintainers
Re: [SCM] FFmpeg packaging branch, master.snapshot, updated. debian/0.6-1-22-g954f195
On Tue, Jun 29, 2010 at 02:15:35PM +0200, Reinhard Tartler wrote: On Tue, Jun 29, 2010 at 13:33:19 (CEST), Jonas Smedegaard wrote: - Shouldn't we upload another revision of rtmpdump ASAP with librtmp-dev depending on libgnutls-dev and remove this build-depends from ffmpeg? I recommend to use d-shlibs to auto-resolve library dependencies. AFAIUI, this does way too much for this problem. Can d-shlibs be used standalone, i.e., without adding it as build-dep and integrating it to debian/rules? Sure - just as you can invoke debhelper commands manually too: Weird (for anything but debugging) but possible. I fail to see the bad in adding it as a build-dependency - it a) is an ancient tool so unless new improvements are really needed should be available also in unusual environments like Ubuntu, and b) is written in shell so does not pull in the whole world. - Jonas -- * Jonas Smedegaard - idealist Internet-arkitekt * Tlf.: +45 40843136 Website: http://dr.jones.dk/ [x] quote me freely [ ] ask before reusing [ ] keep private signature.asc Description: Digital signature ___ pkg-multimedia-maintainers mailing list pkg-multimedia-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org http://lists.alioth.debian.org/mailman/listinfo/pkg-multimedia-maintainers
Re: [SCM] FFmpeg packaging branch, master.snapshot, updated. debian/0.6-1-22-g954f195
On Tue, Jun 29, 2010 at 14:51:46 (CEST), Jonas Smedegaard wrote: On Tue, Jun 29, 2010 at 02:15:35PM +0200, Reinhard Tartler wrote: On Tue, Jun 29, 2010 at 13:33:19 (CEST), Jonas Smedegaard wrote: - Shouldn't we upload another revision of rtmpdump ASAP with librtmp-dev depending on libgnutls-dev and remove this build-depends from ffmpeg? I recommend to use d-shlibs to auto-resolve library dependencies. AFAIUI, this does way too much for this problem. Can d-shlibs be used standalone, i.e., without adding it as build-dep and integrating it to debian/rules? Sure - just as you can invoke debhelper commands manually too: Weird (for anything but debugging) but possible. I'll take a look how it could help here. I fail to see the bad in adding it as a build-dependency - it a) is an ancient tool so unless new improvements are really needed should be available also in unusual environments like Ubuntu, and b) is written in shell so does not pull in the whole world. I'd prefer to minimize the amount required build dependencies to a sensible degree. -- Gruesse/greetings, Reinhard Tartler, KeyID 945348A4 ___ pkg-multimedia-maintainers mailing list pkg-multimedia-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org http://lists.alioth.debian.org/mailman/listinfo/pkg-multimedia-maintainers
Re: [SCM] FFmpeg packaging branch, master.snapshot, updated. debian/0.6-1-22-g954f195
Am 29.06.2010 13:33, schrieb Jonas Smedegaard: I recommend to use d-shlibs to auto-resolve library dependencies. Please correct me if I'm wrong, but is it true that d-devlibdeps simply prints out the corresponding -dev packages for the libraries that the given shared library is linked against? ___ pkg-multimedia-maintainers mailing list pkg-multimedia-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org http://lists.alioth.debian.org/mailman/listinfo/pkg-multimedia-maintainers
Re: [SCM] FFmpeg packaging branch, master.snapshot, updated. debian/0.6-1-22-g954f195
On Tue, Jun 29, 2010 at 08:14, Fabian Greffrath fab...@greffrath.com wrote: Am 29.06.2010 13:39, schrieb Reinhard Tartler: I don't have a strong opinion here, but I feel 4:0.6~ is good enough for this. If you want to change it, go ahead. I'll change it, just to make sure... If the objective is to use at least the released version (and not a svn snapshot), I think the correct approach would be to use 4:0.6.0~, and not include the debian revision. This, however, would mean changing the version from 4:0.6-1 to 4:0.6.0-1 -- Saludos, Felipe Sateler ___ pkg-multimedia-maintainers mailing list pkg-multimedia-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org http://lists.alioth.debian.org/mailman/listinfo/pkg-multimedia-maintainers
Re: [SCM] FFmpeg packaging branch, master.snapshot, updated. debian/0.6-1-22-g954f195
On Tue, Jun 29, 2010 at 03:57:59PM +0200, Fabian Greffrath wrote: Am 29.06.2010 13:33, schrieb Jonas Smedegaard: I recommend to use d-shlibs to auto-resolve library dependencies. Please correct me if I'm wrong, but is it true that d-devlibdeps simply prints out the corresponding -dev packages for the libraries that the given shared library is linked against? Correct. As the very first sentence of its manpage says: Check and list dependencies of development library packages So d-devlibdeps is mostly for debugging purposes. What I suggest you consider integrating in packaging routines is the companion tool d-shlibmove. Oh, and please do speak up if you run into trouble with the tool - I have recently taken over upstream maintenance of the tool, so am obviously quite interested in feedback :-) Kind regards, - Jonas -- * Jonas Smedegaard - idealist Internet-arkitekt * Tlf.: +45 40843136 Website: http://dr.jones.dk/ [x] quote me freely [ ] ask before reusing [ ] keep private signature.asc Description: Digital signature ___ pkg-multimedia-maintainers mailing list pkg-multimedia-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org http://lists.alioth.debian.org/mailman/listinfo/pkg-multimedia-maintainers
Re: [SCM] FFmpeg packaging branch, master.snapshot, updated. debian/0.6-1-22-g954f195
On Tue, Jun 29, 2010 at 17:44:03 (CEST), Felipe Sateler wrote: On Tue, Jun 29, 2010 at 08:14, Fabian Greffrath fab...@greffrath.com wrote: Am 29.06.2010 13:39, schrieb Reinhard Tartler: I don't have a strong opinion here, but I feel 4:0.6~ is good enough for this. If you want to change it, go ahead. I'll change it, just to make sure... If the objective is to use at least the released version (and not a svn snapshot), I think the correct approach would be to use 4:0.6.0~, and not include the debian revision. This, however, would mean changing the version from 4:0.6-1 to 4:0.6.0-1 this looks wrong to me. what's the problem with 4:0.6~? -- Gruesse/greetings, Reinhard Tartler, KeyID 945348A4 ___ pkg-multimedia-maintainers mailing list pkg-multimedia-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org http://lists.alioth.debian.org/mailman/listinfo/pkg-multimedia-maintainers
Re: [SCM] FFmpeg packaging branch, master.snapshot, updated. debian/0.6-1-22-g954f195
On Tue, Jun 29, 2010 at 17:08, Reinhard Tartler siret...@tauware.de wrote: On Tue, Jun 29, 2010 at 17:44:03 (CEST), Felipe Sateler wrote: On Tue, Jun 29, 2010 at 08:14, Fabian Greffrath fab...@greffrath.com wrote: Am 29.06.2010 13:39, schrieb Reinhard Tartler: I don't have a strong opinion here, but I feel 4:0.6~ is good enough for this. If you want to change it, go ahead. I'll change it, just to make sure... If the objective is to use at least the released version (and not a svn snapshot), I think the correct approach would be to use 4:0.6.0~, and not include the debian revision. This, however, would mean changing the version from 4:0.6-1 to 4:0.6.0-1 this looks wrong to me. what's the problem with 4:0.6~? That you intended to restrict the dependencies to the first upstream 0.6 released package, but you actually loosened to any previous svn checkout of the 0.6 branch. -- Saludos, Felipe Sateler ___ pkg-multimedia-maintainers mailing list pkg-multimedia-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org http://lists.alioth.debian.org/mailman/listinfo/pkg-multimedia-maintainers
Re: [SCM] FFmpeg packaging branch, master.snapshot, updated. debian/0.6-1-22-g954f195
On Tue, Jun 29, 2010 at 23:16:52 (CEST), Felipe Sateler wrote: On Tue, Jun 29, 2010 at 17:08, Reinhard Tartler siret...@tauware.de wrote: On Tue, Jun 29, 2010 at 17:44:03 (CEST), Felipe Sateler wrote: On Tue, Jun 29, 2010 at 08:14, Fabian Greffrath fab...@greffrath.com wrote: Am 29.06.2010 13:39, schrieb Reinhard Tartler: I don't have a strong opinion here, but I feel 4:0.6~ is good enough for this. If you want to change it, go ahead. I'll change it, just to make sure... If the objective is to use at least the released version (and not a svn snapshot), I think the correct approach would be to use 4:0.6.0~, and not include the debian revision. This, however, would mean changing the version from 4:0.6-1 to 4:0.6.0-1 this looks wrong to me. what's the problem with 4:0.6~? That you intended to restrict the dependencies to the first upstream 0.6 released package, but you actually loosened to any previous svn checkout of the 0.6 branch. oh, I see. Indeed. In that case, Fabian is right with 4:0.6-1~ This of course looses against 4:0.6-0ubuntu1, but that's hardly a problem that we need to consider here anyway. -- Gruesse/greetings, Reinhard Tartler, KeyID 945348A4 ___ pkg-multimedia-maintainers mailing list pkg-multimedia-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org http://lists.alioth.debian.org/mailman/listinfo/pkg-multimedia-maintainers
