Re: Unofficial repositories on 'debian' domains
On Mon, Mar 5, 2012 at 11:55 AM, Reinhard Tartler <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> 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,
I understand that it is not a codec. ;)
Nevertheless, it is a package that I find myself installing on just
about any workstation with a DVD drive.
> 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.
What then is the "recommended" way of installing a the decryption
library for DVD/CSS?
I mean, from what I've read in this thread, d-m.o is not cooperative
with d.o regarding packages, what is the recommended way of installing