Re: Bug#732159: Should this package be removed?
2013/12/15 Reimar Döffinger <Reimar.Doeffinger@gmx.de>:
> On 14.12.2013, at 23:53, John Paul Adrian Glaubitz <glaubitz@physik.fu-berlin.de> wrote:
>> On 12/14/2013 11:07 PM, Reinhard Tartler wrote:
>>> On Sat, Dec 14, 2013 at 4:28 PM, Moritz Muehlenhoff <jmm@debian.org> wrote:
>>>> Package: mplayer
>>>> Severity: serious
>>>>
>>>> Should this package be removed? If so, please reassign to ftp.debian.org
>>>>
>>>> - Last upload nearly two years ago
>>>> - FTBFS for a long time
>>>> - Incompatible with current libav
>>>> - Alternatives exist (mplayer2, mpv)
>>
>> Well, to be honest, I think the problem is actually libav, not mplayer.
>> Most users prefer the original ffmpeg over libav from my own experience.
>>
>> And there are new upstream releases of mplayer which are actually more
>> frequent and active than mplayer2:
>>
>> - mplayer: current stable release 1.1.1, released May 6th, 2013
>> - mplayer2: current stable release 2.0, released: March 24th, 2011
>>
>> Even the latest git commit for mplayer2 is older than the current
>> stable release of mplayer. The latter seems much more active to me.
>>
>> So, what I'd rather like to see is that we get a proper ffmpeg
>> back in Debian again which would also allow to update mplayer
>> to the current upstream version. There is even an RFP for
>> that [1]. But I guess this is not going to happen.
>>
>> I'm still a bit sad that the split among the ffmpeg people
>> happened.
>>
>> Adrian
>>
>>> [1] http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=729203
>
> I thought someone was working on it already, but I am happy to help out both with getting a parallel install of FFmpeg working (via a rpath hack for example, supported in FFmpeg configure but probably needs fixes to MPlayer's configure to work) and to a limited degree also making MPlayer work with Libav.
How about introducing the ffmpeg shared libraries with libffmpeg
prefix instead of libav prefix?
This would rename the libraries, but since none of the forks shows
interest in using different library names and users already refer to
ffmpeg or libav versions it would cause just a little confusion.
This way the libraries could coexist on the same system and we could
avoid using the rpath hack.
Cheers,
Balint
PS: I'm interested in the topic because I'm working on reviving the
XBMC package but upstream prefers ffmpeg over libav.
Reply to: