Re: Please binNMU phonon-backend-vlc against the new libvlccore7
Hello,
On Wed, 30 Oct 2013 11:38:29 +0000, "Adam D. Barratt"
<adam@adam-barratt.org.uk> wrote:
> On 2013-10-28 6:46, Mateusz Łukasik wrote:
>> recently vlc source package has been updated and it now builds
>> libvlccore7 instead of libvlccore5.
>> It is possible to build phonon-backend-vlc against the new
>> libvlccore7. Now phonon-backend-vlc have broken depends on i386 and
>> amd64. On others architectures new version is not avaitable now, see
>> #727831.
>
> phonon-backend-vlc isn't the only package affected; CCing the
> maintainers - what's the plan here?
I don't know but this looks like a bug in phonon-backend-vlc to me, in
upstream and/or in Debian. The external interface to libvlc is libvlc, not
libvlccore.
libvlccore is explicitly not stable and MUST ONLY be used by VLC plugins.
In other words, unless a package installs something in
/usr/lib/vlc/plugins, it has ZERO business linking against libvlccore
directly. None of the packages below seem to pass that condition, and
definitely not phonon-backend-vlc nor browser-plugin-vlc.
> # Broken Depends:
> cytadela/contrib: cytadela [amd64 armel armhf i386 ia64 kfreebsd-amd64
> kfreebsd-i386 mips mipsel powerpc s390x sparc]
> freetuxtv: freetuxtv [amd64 armel armhf i386 ia64 kfreebsd-amd64
> kfreebsd-i386 mips mipsel powerpc s390x sparc]
> goldencheetah: goldencheetah [amd64 armel armhf i386 ia64
> kfreebsd-amd64 kfreebsd-i386 mips mipsel powerpc s390x sparc]
> libplayer: libplayer2 [amd64 armel armhf i386 ia64 kfreebsd-amd64
> kfreebsd-i386 mips mipsel powerpc s390x sparc]
> npapi-vlc: browser-plugin-vlc [amd64 armel armhf i386 ia64
> kfreebsd-amd64 kfreebsd-i386 mips mipsel powerpc s390x sparc]
> phonon-backend-vlc: phonon-backend-vlc [amd64 armel armhf i386 ia64
> kfreebsd-amd64 kfreebsd-i386 mips mipsel powerpc s390x sparc]
>
> I must admit to not being overjoyed at such changes being made in an
> urgency=high upload, with changelog entries such as
>
> * New major upstream release. (Closes: #436339, #632965, #642187,
> #698023, #593735, #724734, #665732, #700752, #704941, #708953,
> #712935, #398167, #646200, #679654, #654955, LP: #982953, #301193,
> #986785, #1038303, #1109026, #530797, #667584, #938621, #671031,
> #1080847, #1157384, #1173943)
>
> Unless every single one of those bugs is requesting an upload of the
> new version,
They do; they are all (fixed-)upstream bugs. And whomever made the upload
even *missed* a few bug numbers there.
--
Rémi Denis-Courmont
Sent from my collocated server
Reply to: