On Fri, Mar 23, 2012 at 11:09 AM, Christian Marillat <marillat@???> wrote:
> Andres Mejia <amejia004@???> writes:
>
>> On Mar 22, 2012 11:29 AM, "Christian Marillat" <marillat@???> wrote:
>>>
>>> Andres Mejia <amejia004@???> writes:
>>>
>>> > On Mar 21, 2012 2:26 AM, "Christian Marillat" <marillat@???> wrote:
>>> >>
>>> >> Andres Mejia <amejia004@???> 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@???>
>>> | 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
