Re: reasons for split of libavcodec54 and libavcodec-extra-54, missing codecs and a metapackage.
On Thu, Nov 13, 2014 at 9:12 AM, Fabian Greffrath <fabian@greffrath.com> wrote:
> Am Donnerstag, den 13.11.2014, 08:34 -0500 schrieb Reinhard Tartler:
>> >From vlc's debian/changelog:
>> [...]
>> However, this package is linked to LGPL v3 libraries. So while the source is
>> GPL v2 or later, this package is GPL v3
>> [...]
>
> But this speaks against the split.
>
>> I'm wouldn't be surprised if there would be more applications in a
>> similar situation.
>
> Right, I believe there are many libavcodec-using packages out there that
> are licensed under GPLv3 or similar licenses, whereas we forcefully keep
> the default library package at GPLv2. Are there any counter-examples?
>
>> Now that both flavors are built from the same source package in both
>> Debian and Ubuntu, I think we can tighten also the internal shlib
>> dependencies.
>
> The question is, how so we do this in the most clean way? Three
> alternatives come to mind:
> 1) shlibs.local file
> 2) modified dh_makeshlibs, dh_shlibdeps, dh_makeshlibs sequence
> 3) manual dependencies like the -dev packages
>
> Although we implemented (2) in the past, I believe manual explicit
> dependencies in debian/control are the cleaner solution. They are
> already maintained for the -dev packages, so the maintenance burden is
> marginal.
I would probably lean towards option 1, but don't feel strongly about
any of the presented options. Option 2 was a necessity to make the
"libav-extra" source package hack work. I think a shlibs.local file is
most explicit, as it allows to document the intention clearly in place
and avoid special-case dependencies in the debian/control files (which
is why I'd lean towards that option).
--
regards,
Reinhard
Reply to: