[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: mplayer, the time has come

Andrea Mennucc wrote:
> I have uploaded a new version of the 'mplayer' package for Debian,
> namely version 1.0pre6-1

I have reviewed this package, but I've not tried building it.
Here are my first comments, split under your headings.


The README.Debian refers to diffs on a site tonelli.sns.it but
I couldn't find them.

Would running the cvs-changelog and storing the output help to
comply with the letter as well as spirit of the GPL?

debianizer - isn't there a debian/rules way to do this now?

libmpcodecs - missing copyright or are these all but one
mplayer creations?

TOOLS - all of this is deleted in response to a reply about
one file, or do they really intend them all to be non-free?

debian/scripts/win32codecs.sh - does this depend on non-free

> --- PLEA

I hear your plea and I am only commenting about the things I
feel comfortable commenting on. I *am* worried about the patent
problems and the EUCD problems, but I'm not expert enough on
video to comment well. I wouldn't be surprised if they are
worrying enough to prevent parts ever getting into main.


While it's nice to see that developers are so keen for mplayer
to be worked on, I hope that someone is directing them towards
the historical record and the work which still needs to be done.
I only saw it happen in one of the cited threads.

I think that explaining this to everyone is one of the main
challenges for the mplayer package maintainers and you should add
a bit more about it to README.Debian, mentioning investigation_0.90
(does that get included in the /usr/share/doc?)


Is it really necessary to fan dead flames by calling them such
in the README.Debian? Let bygones be bygones?

Thanks for your work on this,


Reply to: