Re: Unofficial repositories on 'debian' domains
On 03/05/2012 06:26 PM, Florian Reitmeir wrote:
> Thomas Goirand wrote:
>> On 03/05/2012 03:40 PM, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
>>> But before getting there, the question is whether the existence of the
>>> website (and its popularity) poses problem to Debian reputation and/or
>>> to the activity of official Debian multimedia packaging. I think
>>> this is
>>> a question for the Debian Multimedia Maintainers (as in
>> I do think this website hurts Debian, and its user community.
>> Let me explain, it's based on my past *user* experience.
> nobody is forcing you to install the packages of d-m-o
I never said this was the case.
> if you have problems with them, report bugs, send patches or simple
> _do_not_ install them.
Well, I don't install them anymore, but I can easily understand that
someone may install them because of a lack of knowledge and
experience, which I currently have, but didn't when I was a user
of d-m.o. By the way, the same applies to the PHP packages from
dotdeb. I'd advise to *not* use them as well...
>> Years ago, I was fooled into thinking that d-m.o was there only to
>> address licensing issues, and bring packages that couldn't go in
>> Debian. But d-m.o does a lot more, like re-packaging things that
>> are already in Debian, and working very well there.
> i use/used d-m-o alot, because many packages in debian are stripped of
> codecs, or crippled because of a upstream which doesn't care about
Can you please care to give examples of these?
> to expect that any third-party package archive is "stable" enough to
> survive an debian dist-upgrade is just brave.
Well, I don't expect that. But at the time (now I'm more careful),
I didn't expect d-m.o to completely crash the upgrade process
either. I did immediately understood what happened to me when
it did, but I wouldn't expect an average user (let's say my wife
or my mother...) to understand and remove the (should I say
crappy again?) packages.