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

Bug#203211: RFP: avidemux -- A small editing software for avi (especially DivX)

On Thu, Jan 5, 2012 at 4:04 PM, Richard Shaw <hobbes1069@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 5, 2012 at 3:13 AM, Fabian Greffrath <fabian@greffrath.com> wrote:
>> Hi all,
>> I have checked the rpmfusion package for avidemux and they have patched it
>> to use the system libraries for libass, liba52, llibmad and libtwolame at
>> least. Furthermore, the package has "BuildRequires: ffmpeg-devel" but I
>> could not found a patch to force it to use the system ffmpeg libraries.
> I took over mantainership around 2.5.3 so I'm not the original author
> of the spec file. Now that I think about it I probably don't need to
> BR: ffmpeg-devel but the original maintainer may have begun an attempt
> to un-bundle ffmpeg.

I'm a bit confused now. Fabian noticed that Fedora's avidemux 2.5.3
package already did unbundle ffmpeg. Is this untrue? Or did I
misunderstand you two?

>> I have put Richard Shaw, the maintainer of this package in rpmfusion into
>> CC. Richard, can you tell us more about avidemux' usage of the ffmpeg
>> libraries in your package?
> As mentioned previously, the bundled ffmpeg is heavily patched. I
> doubt if avidemux wasn't grandfathered in during the 3rd party repo
> merger that it would pass a review request today since RPM Fusion has
> the same policy against bundled libraries as Fedora. I had some luck
> un-bundling some of the other libraries as you noticed, but ffmpeg is
> beyond me.

We would be happy to share the work and take your patches for using
the system libraries for the Debian package. Besides, have you by
chance already asked upstream to comment on your patches? If yes, what
was the response?

> I think a lot of the patches for ffmpeg are to maintain "frame
> accuracy", this feature has been dropped from the upcoming 2.6 release
> (there are pro's and con's to both approaches) and it may be much
> easier to un-bundle ffmpeg from this version.

That's great to hear! Maybe we (i.e., in Debian) should, directly look
at packaging the 2.6 development branch.

> I've already started building preview release packages. The building
> is rather odd, I actually have to do a temporary install of
> avidemux_core in the %build section so the headers are available for
> linking by all the other sub-projects (cli, QT, GTK,  plugins, etc.).
> I know the build systems differ quite a bit but I would think the
> building methodology would sill be the same. Let me know if anyone
> would like to take a look and I'll make my spec file available.

Yes, that would probably be helpful for preparing the Debian package.
Do you use some VCS for your packaging work? In case you are
interested in our current packaging branch, it is at

> I haven't yet taken a look at un-bundling ffmpeg from 2.6 so any help
> would be appreciated.



Reply to: