Re: Duplicate Packages from Debian archive in DMO

Andres Mejia <amejia004@???> writes:

> On Mar 21, 2012 2:26 AM, "Christian Marillat" <marillat@???> wrote:
>>
>> Andres Mejia <amejia004@???> 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.

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.

[...]

>> 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@???>
| 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 ?

> 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.

> 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.

Christian