Re: Unofficial repositories on 'debian' domains
On Mon, Mar 5, 2012 at 6:32 PM, Matt Zagrabelny <email@example.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 5, 2012 at 9:45 AM, Reinhard Tartler <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
>> On Mon, Mar 5, 2012 at 11:52 AM, Milan P. Stanic <email@example.com> 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 is not a codec but a software package that cracks an encryption
algorithm. It has been packaged for debian proper, uploaded and got
rejected by ftp-master. BTW, the reason did not involve patents,
As an alternative source, the libdvdread3 package used to ship a
/usr/share/doc/libdvdread3/install-css.sh script, which fetched a
libdvdcss2 packages from debian-unofficial.org. From a packaging and
maintenance POV, that package is in a much better state. Too bad that
the libdvdread maintainer removed that really handy script.
> 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.
That package desperately needs updating.