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

[Fwd: Re: mplayer, the time has come]

sorry I sent this reply to the wrong list

I also add two missing answers

MJ Ray wrote:
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.


my fault , I forgot
anyway there are no interesting 'small' differences; all
differences are 'big' : deletion of whole directories;
moreover the upstream debian/ is replaced by mine, which 
is incomparable (I renamed the files, and rebuilt some from scratch)

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


I dont know :-)

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

no way at all

suppose that I do this:
$ tar xjf MPlayer-1.0pre6.tar.bz2
$ mv MPlayer-1.0pre6  mplayer-1.0pre6
$ tar czf mplayer_1.0pre6.orig.tar.gz

at this point I am dead: the file mplayer_1.0pre6.orig.tar.gz will contain DeCSS code, and nothing in debian/rules can delete this code from mplayer_1.0pre6.orig.tar.gz

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

they are mplayer creations (at the best of my knowledge)
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?

when I looked in it 2 years ago, I saw that many files did not have proper copyright statements in them. Since I am not packaging anything from TOOLS, I took the radical step to delete them
debian/scripts/win32codecs.sh - does this depend on non-free


it will download and install codecs that are non-free; but it is the user choice (and responsibility) to do that. This is no different than what libdvdread3 proposed wrt decss library, or xanim with codecs
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?)

investigation_0.90 is outdated: after 0.90 the upstream authors did their own investigation and prepared the 'Copyright' file

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

you sure are right


Reply to: