[packman] [PMBS] SR 227 Essentials/ffmpeg

[Cristian Morales Vega]

On 29 May 2012 22:09, Manfred Tremmel <manfred at links2linux.de> wrote:
> Am Dienstag, 29. Mai 2012, 20:49:51 schrieb Cristian Morales Vega:
>> > In the past all libs where included in libffmpeg and later in
>> > libffmpeg0.
>>
>> The point is that libavcodec54 doesn't obsolete any of them.
>
> Ok, maybe we can remove it complete, then the provides should also
> removed. It's so long ago we had libffmpeg and libffmpeg0, so it
> shouldn't matter.

I didn't remove the provides because I saw a tendency in Packman
packages to directly BuildRequire the libraries and not just the
-devel packages, and I didn't want to break something. But indeed the
provides could also be deleted.

>> >> And the problem is that libavcodec53 provided libffmpeg0. If
>> >> libavcodec54 obsoletes libffmpeg0, it obsoletes libavcodec53.
>> >> Since>
>> > Right, but even if I remove it, it's impossible to keep
>> > libavcodec53, it depends on "libavutil2 = %{version}" like
>> > libavcodec54 dose.
>> I didn't notice that... Probably a good moment to change it to
>> "libavutil2 >= %{version}". It will avoid the problem in the future
>> and if ffmpeg guys keep the promise of binary compatibility (no cause
>> to thing otherwise) it must work.
>
> I had big problmes in the past between incompatible ffmpeg libs with the
> same so number. And it's realy hard to find such a problems, because I
> don't know the exact version of the lib, the user uses (and even if I
> know, I don't have to reproduce). That's the reason I've added all this
> dependencies.

The problem was with a higher version? Problems are normal if an user
updated libavcodec without updating libavutil (the soname only
warranties forward compatibility), but I would be surprised if ffmpeg
actually didn't keep it's promise of ABI compatibility. After all they
are doing all the work of maintaining... six? ABI versions.
But if Carl Eugen Hoyos doesn't complain about this it's OK with me ;-)