Bug#729203: Rebuild of possible FFmpeg reverse build-dependenciesa
I've been watching the discussion. I'll be test benching the differences
with FFmpeg and Libav (on the same system) through-out the year. I will
be setting up the experimental (nightly) FFmpeg ppa in launch pad some
time tonight (it's 9pm EST here) or tomorrow. Then I'll add an
experimental (stable). If Debian, and all other derivatives, intend to
stay a Linux OS, then there should be a solution for FFmpeg & Libav to
co-exist. I've done this with Gnome and KDE - I have a hybridized
desktop. I don't expect Debian or Canonical to do this. I expect it to
be purely a community/individual effort. If a Linux OS is truly Linux,
then it must be highly customizable.
>From My Research Desk :)
On 04/27/2014 04:06 PM, Andreas Cadhalpun wrote:
> Hi Niv,
>
> thanks for reviewing.
>
> On 27.04.2014 21:24, Niv Sardi wrote:
>> I took a little bit of time to review your packages today,
>> you overhall did a really good job, and your efforts to bring FFMPEG
>> into debian are very apreciated
>>
>> that said, here are a couple of things I think we need to fix before
>> upload, but mainly:
>> * the libav{codec,device,format,...} packages seem to be conflicting
>> with the libav ones.
>>
>> right now we have libavcodec53 in debian, if we are going to make a
>> libavcodec155 then in 100 libav version we're going to have a hard
>> problem to deal with.
>
> Libav makes a new release about once per year.
> So even if every time the SONAME of libavcodec increases, they will
> get to 155 in about 100 years...
> While I sincerely hope that Debian still exists in 100 years, I think
> this is a mostly theoretical problem, because I doubt that it will be
> a problem to reuse a package name that had been used 100 years earlier.
>
>> I thought you wanted to package like the -dev ackage into
>> libavcodec-ffmpegxx
>
> (The development packages are different, because Libav already uses
> the name libavcodec-dev.)
>
>> if we're going to aim into having both libav and ffmpeg, we should be
>> good citizen to each other.
>
> As I don't think that's a problem, I prefer to follow policy [1]:
> "Normally, the run-time shared library and its SONAME symlink should
> be placed in a package named librarynamesoversion, where soversion is
> the version number in the SONAME of the shared library."
>
> But if you still think, it would be better to call them *-ffmpegNNN, I
> could live with that.
>
> Best regards,
> Andreas
>
>
> 1:
> https://www.debian.org/doc/debian-policy/ch-sharedlibs.html#s-sharedlibs-runtime
>
>
Reply to: