Bug#658084: libav-extra: Really necessary?

[Jonas Smedegaard]

On 12-02-01 at 10:24am, Fabian Greffrath wrote:
> Am 31.01.2012 17:55, schrieb Reinhard Tartler:
> >Legally, I don't think there is much difference here. However, there 
> >is a practical difference for Debian as distribution: we do not 
> >violate the packages if users install a combination of packages that 
> >result to a license clash. Yes, we can add conflicts, and probably 
> >have to if we become aware of it, but we cannot be held responsible 
> >for funky stuff that random users do on their (own) systems.
> 
> Reminds me of the libcurl situation. We have both libcurl (linked 
> against openssl) and libcurl-gnutls packages in Debian. The latter is 
> for packages with licenses incompatible to openssl's one. However, 
> nothing prevents you from installing the openssl-linked libcurl 
> package on your system if you wish so.

I believe multiple flavors of libcurl is installable concurrently, which 
means dependent packages can link against a specific one as licensing 
requires.

With libav you provide no way for dependent packages to ensure their 
licensing is respected.


> What parts of libav are actually affected by the two additional 
> codecs? I guess it's only libavcodec (and maybe libavformat). If it 
> really boils down to rebuild only one library with aditional 
> confflags, I begin to like Andres' idea more and integrate libav-extra 
> into the libav package.

If ok legally then certainly that's most elegant.


 - Jonas

-- 
 * Jonas Smedegaard - idealist & Internet-arkitekt
 * Tlf.: +45 40843136  Website: http://dr.jones.dk/

 [x] quote me freely  [ ] ask before reusing  [ ] keep private
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 836 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
URL: <http://lists.alioth.debian.org/pipermail/pkg-multimedia-maintainers/attachments/20120201/a2fdaa1d/attachment.pgp>