Re: debian-multimedia.org considered harmful, Was: Unofficial repositories on 'debian' domains
On Monday, March 05, 2012 10:42:50, Reinhard Tartler wrote:
> Friendly discussion with the maintainer of debian-multimedia.org to
> not replace libraries such as libavcodec and friends have failed
> ultimatively (BTW, that is part of the reason why we've ended up with
> an epoch of '4', dmo uses epoch '5'); he has repeatedly shown that is
> not interested in collaborating with pkg-multimedia at all. He also
> does not seem interested in installing libraries in a way that they do
> not interfere with 'official' Debian packages (e.g., by changing
> SONAMES, or installing in private directories, etc.).
I've been trying to find where these discussions occurred, but I'm unable to
find them in either [dmo-discussion] mailing list archives (which go back as
far as June 2010), nor in the [debian-multimedia] mailing list at least as far
back as January 2010. The latter archives go as far back as May 2003, but I
stopped looking at Jan 2010 because had hoped to see at least some public
discussion somewhere back when Squeeze was being prepared for release.
The only emails I've been able to find seem curteous and professional on both
Christian Marrilat apparently uses a Pin: release o=Unofficial Multimedia
Packages (rather than l=Unofficial ...) explaining to someone how to try to
avoid conflicts with the Debian Experimental repo 
Christian Marrilat sending a patch for libv4l-dev to debian-multimedia 
NMU from Stefano Zacchiroli which seems to included the above patch 
> While debian-multimedia.org has gained a reputation of providing
> packages, which were desperately lacking in Debian,
> IMO this repository has turned into a major source of trouble and
> pissed users provoking flamewars in the recent past.
If so I haven't seen that on [dmo-discussion] or [debian-multimedia] either.
If these happened on [debian-devel] then I can understand how I missed them as
the traffic here is relatively high.