Bug#552705: [mp4v2] Re: Bug#552705: ITP: mp4v2 -- a library that provides functions to read, eate, and modify mp4 files
eddyg at me.com
Fri Oct 30 21:54:16 UTC 2009
Firstly, just so you know, my time for working on mp4v2 has been
severly limited the last few months due to personal circumstances. I'm
mainly having to just monitor things via my iPhone.
The copyright should be MPL since that is the license that Cisco chose
to use. I could try to see if they are willing to change that to an
MIT or BSD one.
There are two incompatible versions of the library, the first is the
branch from mpeg4ip and then it was modified to be incompatible with
some new tagging Apis.
As for libtool, that's a sticky area due to broken tool chains on
macos x. We may be able to revert to only libtool now I guess. I'm not
really up to speed on all of that, Konablend implemented the build
system for us. I'm open to patches.
On 31/10/2009, at 6:08, Reinhard Tartler <siretart at tauware.de> wrote:
> Hi mp4v2 developers,
> I'm CC'ing you with this email because of two reasons:
> a) we wanted to inform you about Debian's intend to package mp4v2
> b) I have a technical question about the library versioning used in
> mp4v2 package
> c) Inform you that we update the horribly outdated config.guess and
> config.sub files in the mp4v2 package
> Fabian Greffrath <greffrath at leat.rub.de> writes:
>> Fabian Greffrath schrieb:
>>> b) add override_dh_auto_configure and copy over the files
>>> [config.sub, config.guess] from autotools-dev, remove them in
>> Did it that way...
> OK. Now I've successfully built it, seems so far okay.
> I've further looked at the package. Confusingly, a copy of the GPL is
> included in the package as file COPYING, while the source itself is
> MPL. This seems to have already been fixed in the upstream svn.
> the other more serious issue is this:
> libmp4v2_la_LDFLAGS = \
> $(AM_LDFLAGS) \
> -version-number $(PROJECT_version_major):$(PROJECT_version_minor):
> $(PROJECT_version_point) $(X_libmp4v2_la_LDFLAGS)
> this doesn't look right. Well, it might be correct if the upstream
> versioning is choosen correctly, but in almost all cases, the release
> version and library version should be handled seperatly.
> To me this looks like someone decided to not bother with libtool but
> implement an simpler own solution without really understanding the
> implications of librariy versioning.
> I noticed that debian-multimedia.org (and ubuntu) include an
> package. Is the created libmp4v2-1 from this package really ABI
> incompatible to the proposed package? If not, then SONAME should not
> have been bumped.
> I'm holding back with the upload of this package until Fabian confirms
> that he is aware of this issue and wants to have it uploaded anyway,
> (preferably) the library versioning is clarified.
> Reinhard Tartler, KeyID 945348A4
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
> Groups "mp4v2" group.
> To post to this group, send email to mp4v2 at googlegroups.com
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to mp4v2+unsubscribe at googlegroups.com
> For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/mp4v2?hl=en
More information about the pkg-multimedia-maintainers