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

Re: please let mplayer into testing



[this was meant for d-release (damn autocompletion)]

Moritz Muehlenhoff ha scritto:
> A Mennucc wrote:
>> Brief summary of bug:  MPlayer contains an embedded copy of FFmpeg
>> (indeed, they are developed by ~the same people); Aur=E9lien G=C9R=D4ME a=
>> nd
>> Moritz Muehlenhoff ask that the mplayer package be dynamically linked to
>>  the libraries in the Debian package ffmpeg; they consider this a RC bug.=
>>
>> Unfortunately, this cannot be currently done (mplayer does not compile
>> with current ffmpeg package;  and we are too late to update ffmpeg into
>> Etch ; more details are in the above bug report).
>>
>> So we agreed to ignore that problem for the sake of the etch release
>
> Where did I agree until now?

sorry,  I got confused in the English, that last "we"
was meant to mean "me and Aurelien" (and not including you)

anyway, shortly after I wrote that email, the situation reverted again
(for worse); so currently there is no agreement between me and Aurelien,
and I put that matter to d-ctte, in bug 402772

>> Please hint MPlayer into Etch.
> 
> I've tried it myself and it is indeed not possible to link against
> libavcodec dynamically currently. Given that mplayer was only accepted
> into the archive 2.5 months after the current ffmpeg snapshot was made
> and that mplayer is an important application I do now think we can
> ignore this RC bug for Etch as a one-time exception. In any case further
> mplayer maintenance needs to be synchronised with Debian's libav[codec|
> format], even if it means to not being able to upload the most recent
> upstream version every week.

happy to know this. May you please forward this statement into bug
402772? (I would really appreciate).

> Also, the static linking against libdv introduced in 1.0~rc1-4 should
> be reverted.

I did not mean to introduce any static linking; I will investigate


a.



Attachment: signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature


Reply to: