2015-05-18 16:45 GMT+02:00 Jonas Smedegaard <d...@jones.dk>: > Quoting Alessandro Ghedini (2015-05-18 14:33:18) >> On Mon, May 18, 2015 at 11:15:04AM +0200, Jonas Smedegaard wrote: >>> There are multiple ways to handle packages unsuitable for long-term >>> maintenance: >>> >>> * Treat as "experimental" - e.g. mpv >> >> How is mpv unsuitable for long-term maintainance? > > Oh, I simply assumed that was the case, but since we have an expert on > the matter (yourself) let's ask: > > Why are some mpv packages targeted experimental rather than unstable, if > not because those specific releases are treated (by you) as unsuitable > for long-term maintenance? I uploaded xbmc versions built with ffmpeg to experimental because ffmpeg was not allowed to enter testing but I wanted to provide an xbmc version to our users which has better security support and fewer bugs. I could not upload it to unstable since unstable could not have two versions of the package built from the same source and creating a new xbmc-ffmpeg source package would have consume a lot of additional mirror space which I wanted to avoid. This solution seems to be trivial and established for trying different build dependencies among developers and I don't really understand why you are asking for explanation.
Cheers, Balint _______________________________________________ pkg-multimedia-maintainers mailing list pkg-multimedia-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pkg-multimedia-maintainers