Re: Unofficial repositories on 'debian' domains
On Mon, 2012-03-05 at 16:45, Reinhard Tartler wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 5, 2012 at 11:52 AM, Milan P. Stanic <mps@arvanta.net> wrote:
> > 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.
> Out of curiousity, what codecs do you miss in the official debian packages?
It was a long ago when I installed packages from d-m.o so I can't
remember right now. I just put (in apt.sources):
deb http://www.debian-multimedia.org testing main contrib
deb http://www.debian-multimedia.org unstable main contrib
and forgot about it.
When I encounter conflict in apt/itude I know how to resolve it or just
don't care if it isn't important.
So, I appreciate Christian Marrilat effort with d-m.o when Debian was not
unable to package all codecs and apps due to patent and licencing
'issues'. Again, I don't blame Debian for that.
I just want to tell that the d-m.o was and I think it would be useful
just because Debian cannot ship all software/codecs which have
patent/licence problem.
--
Kind regards, Milan
Reply to: