[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Feature-request: WebM support for Squeeze

On Sun, Dec 25, 2011 at 10:50:10PM +0200, Alexey Eromenko wrote:
> Backports solved it by backporting 0.7.x to Squeeze, but (!) - the
> apps on top still use old codecs.
> KDE Kaffeine player uses libxine1-ffmpeg (1.1.19-2, stable), which
> uses libavcodec52 (0.5.1, stable)

Yes, because the newer version of libavcodec52 has a different soname,
presumably because the library authors couldn't (or wouldn't) keep the same

> backports repo has codec:
> libavcodec53 (0.7.2, backports) -- but no way to force "libxine" and
> "Kaffeine" to use new codecs.

You'll need to rebuild the applications that you want to use the newer
libavcodec against it.  This will likely involve modifying the build-depends
and rebuilding against backports packages (or at least the newer libavcodec). 
The other option would be to backport the relevant packages from wheezy,
which will give you any new features (and bugs) that are present in those
packages, in addition to their support for WebM.

At any rate, none of that work will give you WebM in squeeze.  It'll only
get you WebM in squeeze+a pile of packages from wheezy rebuilt in a
partially squeeze environment.  That might work for you, but it's still not
achieving your stated goal of "WebM support in squeeze".

> Q: Are backports packages designed to replace stable packages, or to
> co-exist side-by-side ?

Backports are intended to replace older versions of the same package,
however libavcodec53 is a different package than libavcodec52, and hence
they can exist side-by-side.  This is a *feature*, though, not a bug,
because otherwise the moment you upgraded libavcodec you'd need to upgrade
every other package on your system that used it to a version that was built
against the newer soname, which would suck mightily.

> (I'm not familiar with 'backports' policy, and can't find it)

http://backports.debian.org/ and go from there ("Contribute" would be my
first stop in your position).

- Matt

Reply to: