Splitting libav-tools

[Reinhard Tartler]

On Sat, Mar 24, 2012 at 4:17 PM, Andres Mejia <amejia004 at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sat, Mar 24, 2012 at 3:18 AM, Reinhard Tartler <siretart at gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Sat, Mar 24, 2012 at 1:19 AM, Andres Mejia <amejia004 at gmail.com> wrote:
>>> I believe the libav-tools package should be split and the separate
>>> binary programs each be installed in their own package. Out of all the
>>> programs from libav/ffmpeg, I've rarely used ffplay, and I never used
>>> the server or probe programs.
>>
>> I've been thinking about this as well, but TBH, I don't really see the
>> gain. Splitting avplay out of libav-tools would save 17 library
>> dependencies:
>> +libasyncns.so.0
>> +libcaca.so.0
>> +libdbus-1.so.3
>> +libFLAC.so.8
>> +libjson.so.0
>> +libncursesw.so.5
>> +libnsl.so.1
>> +libpulsecommon-1.1.so
>> +libpulse-simple.so.0
>> +libpulse.so.0
>> +libresolv.so.2
>> +libSDL-1.2.so.0
>> +libslang.so.2
>> +libsndfile.so.1
>> +libtinfo.so.5
>> +libwrap.so.0
>>
>> In particular, it would not save you from X11 related dependencies,
>> thanks to the libva.
>>
>> TBH, I'm not entirely convinced that there is much gain in splitting
>> these. If we do it, libav-tools should stay as meta package that
>> depends on all three tiny packages.
>
> I was thinking more in terms of decreasing the installed size between
> the different programs. avplay and avserver don't need the presets in
> /usr/share/avconv, right?

No, but I didn't notice the presets to occupy much of space. Moreover,
they are IMO rather pointless, because the x264 private options are a
much better substitute.

-- 
regards,
    Reinhard