Debimedia archive

Andres Mejia mcitadel at
Sun Aug 16 21:32:48 UTC 2009

On Thursday 13 August 2009 04:13:18 Reinhard Tartler wrote:
> Felipe Sateler <fsateler at> writes:
> > El miércoles 12 de agosto, Reinhard Tartler escribió:
> >> Felipe Sateler <fsateler at> writes:
> >> > Good to know we officially maintain it :p. So this is basically a more
> >> > official
> >>
> >> no comment.
> >
> > That was an honest question. is just an additional
> > repository with packages. Does debimedia intend to be just that or
> > something more?
> I'd say it depends on the active members that actually work on
> debimedia.  Every pkg-multimedia member is of course invited to join
> this efford.

I'm willing to volunteer, especially if it turns out that ffmpeg will be removed 
or even more crippled than it already is.

> ATM I see debimedia as 'the missing bits' of debian that are not allowed
> in because of mainly political reasons regarding unheld discussions with
> ftp-master and the DPL.  Yes, I do seek more discussion about the
> problem, but currently, nobody seems really interested in talking to us
> (or me?) about this topic, so I decided to actually do something about
> it.

It's probably a good idea to get a consensus on what debimedia will and will not 
be. Have you looked at the wiki page [1]?

> For these reason, I'd like to keep the number of debimedia packages
> rather focused on this point.
> >> > Hmm, I think there is a big overlap with what agnula/studio64 does. Is
> >> > the scope of debimedia much narrower than that of Studio64? (Ie, no
> >> > installation images, etc etc?).
> >>
> >> AFAIUI agnula/studio64 focus on jack and other semi-professional audio
> >> related packages. debimedia currently has:
> >>
> >>  * ffmpeg-extra
> >>  * lame
> >>  * libquicktime-extra
> >>  * xvidcore
> >>
> >> TBH, I don't see any overlap here. Please correct me if I'm wrong.
> >
> > Well, Studio64 is basically Debian plus a few extra packages and a
> > different kernel. It could have been possible to take advantage of their
> > infrastructure. Although if you plan a closer integration with Debian, it
> > makes sense to keep it as small as possible.
> Is there a list of these 'extra' packages? AFAIUI they have a different
> focus to what I have in mind right now. Which doesn't mean that there is
> no room for collaboration, but I first need to fixup my understanding of
> Studio64 before proposing or asking anything seriously.
> >> > How will we manage bugs to those packages, since they won't have the
> >> > BTS infrastructure?
> >>
> >> As interim solution, I'd suggest to use either alioth tickets or
> >> until we find a better solution.
> >
> > OK. Perhaps it will be possible to convince the bts admins to allow us to
> > use it.
> That would be ideal, indeed.

I would like this too, but in case this doesn't happen, I'll be happy to have a 
place where I can report bugs.


More information about the pkg-multimedia-maintainers mailing list