Re: Unofficial repositories on 'debian' domains
On 03/05/2012 06:52 PM, Milan P. Stanic wrote:
> I don't agree with you here.
> For me d-m.o was (and still is) valuable resource.
> Some codecs missing in Debian packages because of the policy (I don't
> blame Debian for that) and in that case d-m.o is best option for me
> because I don't want/have time to package it from the source.
>
That's the problem. Normally, that is what it should be for, but
it does a lot more. Just tried right now, to add d-m.o repo for
Squeeze on my laptop, and here's what it does:
The following packages will be REMOVED:
libavfilter0
The following NEW packages will be installed:
libartsc0 libavfilter1 libavutil50 libbs2b0 libdirac-decoder0 libfaac0
libggi-target-x libggi2 libggiwmh0 libggiwmh0-target-x libgii1
libgii1-target-x libmp3lame0 librtmp0 libva-x11-1 libva1 libvdpau1
libx264-112 libx264-118 libxvidcore4 mplayer-skin-blue
The following packages will be upgraded:
audacity audacity-data ffmpeg libavcodec52 libavdevice52 libavformat52
libdrm-intel1 libdrm-radeon1 libdrm2 libplib1 libpostproc51
libquicktime1 libswscale0 libvpx0 mplayer
It should be working like backports, and force me to use something like
-t debian-multimedia when I do apt-get install, it shouldn't just overwrite
what I've installed and take the control of my laptop. Or at least, it
should
*clearly* be explained on the d-m.o website what will happen after the
repository is added. Fact is: d-m.o doesn't do any of these to educate the
user or explaining what will happen.
So yes, d-m.o has few codecs which sometimes I need, but I will NEVER
EVER AGAIN trust it enough to add it as a repository in my sources.list.
That's unless it acts better, stop setting-up epocs, and understand pinning
the way backport.d.o does.
Thomas
Reply to: