Duplicate Packages from Debian archive in DMO

[Andres Mejia]

On Mar 22, 2012 11:29 AM, "Christian Marillat" <marillat at free.fr> wrote:
>
> Andres Mejia <amejia004 at gmail.com> writes:
>
> > On Mar 21, 2012 2:26 AM, "Christian Marillat" <marillat at free.fr> wrote:
> >>
> >> Andres Mejia <amejia004 at gmail.com> writes:
>
> [...]
>
> >> Also I upload my packages more quickly than Debian. 3.99.0, 3.99.1
> >> 3.99.2 lame version have never been packaged by Debian.
> >
> > Ok. Why not directly upload these packages to Debian then? You are still a Debian
> > developer right?
> >
> > In case you didn't know, I'm part of the team packaging multimedia related software
> > for Debian. I'm also a DD. I help maintain lame, x264, and a list of other packages
> > in Debian.
> >
> > I could use help in keeping lame and other packages up to date. I don't have time to
> > upload new releases right when they're released. Would you be willing to help
> > maintain packages in Debian?
>
> This isn't possible to change the soname library monthly because the
> release team will probably reject monthly new soname.
>
> Also a new soname mean to rebuild all package who depends on the new
> soname library because the old soname packages are removed in Debian.

We request library transitions in this case. Usually, the release team
grants us these requests within a reasonable time frame.

> Here, I can keep more than one soname library.
>
> A nice example is Debian released a new -120 package the same day I did
> a -124 package.

For x264, we're tracking the stable branch, currently at commit
01f7a33... You must be tracking master. In any case, Debian has
experimental for these cases (providing a stable library package and
an experimental one). You could be helping maintain x264 via unstable
and experimental.

> [...]
>
> >> 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 at lists.alioth.debian.org>
> | 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.

$ apt-cache show vlc
Package: vlc
Version: 2.0.0-6
Installed-Size: 3459
Maintainer: Debian Multimedia Maintainers
<pkg-multimedia-maintainers at lists.alioth.debian.org>
Architecture: amd64
Replaces: vlc-nox (<< 1.1.5-1)
Provides: mp3-decoder
Depends: ttf-freefont, vlc-nox (= 2.0.0-6), libaa1 (>= 1.4p5),
libavcodec53 (>= 4:0.8-1~) | libavcodec-extra-53 (>= 4:0.8-1~),
libavutil51 (>= 4:0.8-1~) | libavutil-extra-51 (>= 4:0.8-1~), libc6
(>= 2.8), libfreetype6 (>= 2.2.1), libfribidi0 (>= 0.19.2), libgcc1
(>= 1:4.1.1), libgl1-mesa-glx | libgl1, libice6 (>= 1:1.0.0),
libqtcore4 (>= 4:4.7.0~beta1), libqtgui4 (>= 4:4.7.0~beta1),
libsdl-image1.2 (>= 1.2.10), libsdl1.2debian (>= 1.2.11), libsm6,
libstdc++6 (>= 4.6), libtar0, libva-x11-1 (>> 1.0.14~), libva1 (>>
1.0.14~), libvlccore5 (>= 2.0.0), libx11-6, libxcb-composite0,
libxcb-keysyms1 (>= 0.3.8), libxcb-randr0 (>= 1.1), libxcb-render0,
libxcb-shape0, libxcb-shm0, libxcb-xfixes0, libxcb-xv0 (>= 1.2),
libxcb1 (>= 1.6), libxext6, libxinerama1, libxpm4, zlib1g (>=
1:1.2.3.3)
Recommends: vlc-plugin-notify (= 2.0.0-6), vlc-plugin-pulse (=
2.0.0-6), xdg-utils
Suggests: videolan-doc
Breaks: vlc-nox (<< 1.1.5-1)
Description-en: multimedia player and streamer
---

> > 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
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).
It was easier for me to reinstall my system than to try and revert the
changes made by activating dmo.

> > Is there any particular reason why DMO ships ffmpeg?
>
> 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

> Christian
>

~ Andres