[packman] libavcore needs latest libavutil
manfred at links2linux.de
Mon Nov 15 19:15:38 CET 2010
Am Montag, 15. November 2010 schrieb Carl Eugen Hoyos:
> Manfred Tremmel <manfred at ...> writes:
> > Am Montag, 15. November 2010 schrieb Pascal Bleser:
> > > On 2010-11-15 14:53:26 (+0100), Pascal Bleser
> > <pascal.bleser at ...> wrote:
> > > > On 2010-11-15 12:27:40 (+0000), Carl Eugen Hoyos <cehoyos at ...>
> > wrote:
> > > > > When I updated (only) ffmpeg today, libavcore was installed,
> > > > > but libavutil was not automatically updated, leading to this
> > > > > output: $ ffmpeg
> > > > > ffmpeg: relocation error: /usr/lib64/libavcore.so.0: symbol
> > > > > av_default_item_name, version LIBAVUTIL_50 not defined in
> > > > > file libavutil.so.50 with link time reference
> > > >
> > > > Seems like ffmpeg is missing explicit Requires on the libraries
> > > > that spawn out of it.
> > >
> > > On a side not: thank you very much ffmpeg upstream to not care
> > > about releases and proper SONAMEs, this is really a mess we have
> > > to take care of as packagers, and it's a major pain in the bottom
> > > *sigh*
> > This never should happen if you do a "zypper up" or "zypper dup" is
> > done, because there's allways updated the complete package.
> That is exactly what I did today (I did not update manually) and the
> libraries where NOT updated (which - one could argue - might be ok,
> because this works most of the time, but not with the introduction
> of libavcore which needs a newer libavutil; additionally, it
> probably makes no sense regarding the cause of the update).
> Let me repeat that I think it is very good of Packman not to use
> (so-called) "released" versions of FFmpeg, but to update regularly.
Ok, then this must be because of the "downgrade" of the build numbers
because of switching the build repository to testing, otherwise I can't
see what situation can keep zypper away from doing a correct update.
> Please actually read the licenses before making such statements (that
> do not really add confidence): The system libraries are explicitely
> mentioned in the licenses (that - iirc - were written at a time when
> no free system libraries existed for real world applications).
Ok, you are right. I've reed the GPL and LICENSE file from ffmpeg and
yes, I've made a mistake. I've also turned of building libfaac support
in my daily snapshot.
> Let me add the following: Originally, we all did not know that
> libfaac was never free software, so we (FFmpeg developers) can
> hardly blame anybody who distributes an old FFmpeg version compiled
> as GPL and linked against libfaac. Since I've explained now that
> libfaac is non-free and you cannot link a GPL'ed software against a
> non-free library, please stop distributing such binaries.
Machs gut | http://www.iivs.de/schwinde/buerger/tremmel/
Manfred | http://packman.links2linux.de/
More information about the Packman