Bug#658084: libav-extra: Really necessary?

[Andres Mejia]

On Mon, Mar 19, 2012 at 5:25 AM, Fabian Greffrath <fabian at greffrath.com> wrote:
> Am 19.03.2012 03:59, schrieb Andres Mejia:
>
>> Though the build time is increased for libav, ultimately, this change
>> would be better as the buildd network would not have to cope with
>> building from two source packages (i.e. setting up and tearing down
>> for libav and libav-extra for each architecture). Also, in my opinion,
>> it is easier and less error prone to maintain a single libav package
>> rather than two of them.
>
>
> I generally agree with your proposal, although "easier and less error-prone"
> is in the eye of the beholder, of course. At least I am currently a bit lost
> in your proposed diff against debian/rules. ;)
>
> In this context, please remove the libav-source binary package as well. It
> is of no further use (that I know of) if the libav-extra source package is
> removed. Also, please make sure that only the dynamic libraries are rebuilt
> for the extra packages, not the static one (don't know if it is already like
> this; as I said, the diff is a bit too much for me on a Monday morning ;) ).
>
>  - Fabian

I think the libav-source package will still be useful. There are
people who like to activate/deactivate certain features of libav. They
can use the libav-source package and ensure they have a build with all
the patches applied for the Debian builds of libav.

-- 
~ Andres