Re: Unofficial repositories on 'debian' domains
On Mon, Mar 5, 2012 at 9:45 AM, Reinhard Tartler <email@example.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 5, 2012 at 11:52 AM, Milan P. Stanic <firstname.lastname@example.org> 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?
This may have been mentioned elsewhere in this thread, but a wiki page
under wiki.debian.org instructs users to use d-m.o as a repository to
get various codecs.
Obviously wikis need to be taken with a grain of salt, but anything
(including wiki.d.o) under the debian.org domain feels somewhat
official and can lead users without the requisite knowledge to heed
said advice. If there are users out there who can distill their
knowledge regarding codecs and improve the wiki page, then that would
be much appreciated.