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
`----
[...]
>> > 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
