Fabian Greffrath <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > package: xine-lib > version: 1.1.4-2 > severity: minor > tags: experimental
Thanks for your bug report! > since the split-up of the `libxine1' package the short descriptions of > the fragmented packages are misleading. Now all of them are `the xine > video/media player library, binary files' without further explanation. Oh, you're right. I'll fix the description in the next upload > Secondly, in the new package's description there is a dot `.' visible > where it should most propably show an empty line. I'll have a log > Thirdly, the selection of plugins which make it into `libxine1' and > `libxine1-ffmpeg' seems quite random: > In `libxine1-ffmpeg' there is the `xineplug_decode_mad.so' plugin which > obviously has nothing to do with ffmpeg itself. The same applies to the > a52 and dts plugins. Now, one might think that this package is for input > plugins in general, maybe even for decoding of "patented" formats (i.e. > mp3). Yes, the selection is indeed quite random. The main motivation for the split was to promote the dependencies from 'Recommends' to 'Depends'. In order to not get too many dependencies from libxine1 (which has a lot of reverse depends), I moved some plugins to seperate packages. > But then there are even more input plugins in `libxine1', like > those for vorbis. And, more puzzling, there are even the plugins for > decoding of real-audio etc. I tried to keep the libxine1 package functional, without imposing too many and 'heavyweight' dependencies. > Maybe I get something wrong, but could you please clean up the packages' > descriptions to explain more precisely what kind of codecs they contain > and why they do? Yes, this is indeed necessary. Perhaps you can make some suggestions for that? Thanks again for your report! -- Gruesse/greetings, Reinhard Tartler, KeyID 945348A4
pgpvYFSa9bML9.pgp
Description: PGP signature
