Re: debian-multimedia.org considered harmful, Was: Unofficial repositories on 'debian' domains
On 03/10/2012 05:07 PM, Eric Valette wrote:
> The problem is that debian per se
> 1) is unusable for any serious multimedia usage.
1/ I don't agree.
2/ Please define "serious".
> what are the version of VLC, ffmpeg, xbmc provided by debian?
In where? Stable? SID? Backports? FYI, you can check all
of this easily by yourself using packages.debian.org. Or
are you trying to make the point that Debian has outdated
packages?
> 2) has long pretended they have the knowledge to make multimedia
> packages better than other
There's nobody pretending. Only facts that d-m.o does break
things in plain Debian. That's facts, together with with the
explanations and things we've found. If there are issues that
you have found in the Debian packages, the Debian bug tracker
is open to anyone to send bugs, and Debian is also widely open
to contributions. Have you ever contributed anything to Debian?
> Instead of arguing you should be pleased someone makes debian useable
> for multimedia activities otherwise people will move to ubuntu where
> also multimedia packages are maintained via non official PPA
I don't think anyone is trying to argue with anyone. And you,
instead of complaining about behaviors of Debian maintainers,
like you just do above, you should push others to participate
in Debian itself, rather than working on their own stuff.
Or even better: consider helping yourself. I don't think that
the debian multimedia maintainers ever refused help.
> Have you heard of raspberrypi, cubox, spark, that are making the buzz.
> What is demoed on it: multimedia capabilities. Will debian be
> attractiive without multimedia packages: no.
It's up to *anyone* (eg: including yourself) to make this change.
And by the way, I have read many people writing that Debian
would be a very good choice for raspberry pi. I do think that
Debian Squeeze has a very nice set of packages that will make
a good fit for this platform. What do you think will be lacking
exactly?
>> In summary, I can only advise everyone against enabling that
>> repository on any machine.
>
> Crap: I've been using that for ages (running debian since 96) with
> experimental+unstable and it is rock solid.
Sorry, after having the pain of d-m.o breaking my Lenny to
Squeeze upgrade, and seeing that d-m.o introduces some
epoc in the package version (at least recently for VLC)
which breaks plain Debian, you absolutely *cannot* say
that it's rock solid. That's just not the case at all.
Also, someone else made the point that Christian Marilla
doesn't want to work directly in Debian, which I believe
is the main issue here.
> Maintainer also fixes issues and respond to bug report more correctly
> than some other official package maintainer.
Please give facts and proves the sentence above. As much
as I can tell by this thread, it has been demonstrated that
packages in d-m.o do not have serious security upgrades.
Also, please explain here how the official packages aren't
giving security upgrades in a correct way. Debian has a
security tracker, a security repository, and a security team
which takes care of all these, and is in tight relationship
with other distros. Can you say the same for d-m.o?
It's very easy to point fingers at others, without giving proof
of what you are writing, and without proposing any help.
I find this a very bad attitude.
Thomas
Reply to: