[packman] [PMBS] SR 227 Essentials/ffmpeg

Cristian Morales Vega reddwarf at opensuse.org
Tue May 29 21:49:51 CEST 2012

On 29 May 2012 20:42, Manfred Tremmel <manfred at links2linux.de> wrote:
> Am Dienstag, 29. Mai 2012, 19:57:34 schrieben Sie:
>> On 29 May 2012 19:14, Manfred Tremmel <manfred at links2linux.de> wrote:
>> > Am Montag, 28. Mai 2012, 23:24:25 schrieb PMBS:
>> >> New submit request 227 on ffmpeg by RedDwarf
>> >> https://pmbs.links2linux.org/request/show/227
>> >>
>> >> - Remove incorrect obsoletes
>> >
>> > What's wrong with this obsoletes entries? I've inserted both some
>> > time ago, after renaiming and splitting the ffmpeg package to get
>> > rid of old package and prevent from conflicts.
>> Just after the renaming they were OK. But when the package was named
>> libffmpeg0 it provided... what? libavcodec36? Now it's false that
>> libavcodec54 obsoletes libavcodec36 since you may need both (for
>> programs compiled against one or the other). Just because of this they
>> are wrong.
> In the past all libs where included in libffmpeg and later in
> libffmpeg0.

The point is that libavcodec54 doesn't obsolete any of them.

>> 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.

>> there were some packages already compiled against libavcodec54 and
>> others failed to build (but the old versions were still available in
>> the repo compiled against libavcodec53)... users needed libavcodec53
>> and libavcodec54 installed at the same time. The Obsoletes didn't
>> allow that since installing libavcodec54 triggered the uninstall of
>> libavcodec53.
> I work on porting the missing packages. Give me a view days.

No problem.

More information about the Packman mailing list