Bug#656848: libav-dev package?
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 01/23/12 07:22, Reinhard Tartler wrote: I don't think this would be a great idea. As application maintainer, you should know the requirements of your package, and knowing the libraries it uses is one part of them. Not necessarily. If I debianize a huge package I have to know that it needs ffmpeg or libav at build time, but in which packages the libav development stuff is split into is not important. The next libav update might provide a different set of packages, anyway. Surely the meta package would be something optional. A shortcut to make writing control files easier, esp. if you have to look at the libav version number. To be more specific, during my last archive rebuilds, the exact build dependencies gave me a clue what part of libav a package is using, which was helpful for classifying libav's reverse dependencies. This wouldn't be possible at all if all application packages started to build-depend on some libav-dev package. I surely don't know the details of your analysis, but since you can rebuild libav only as a unit I would have assumed that you had to rebuild all packages that depend upon _any_ libav dev package. Regards Harri -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux) iEYEARECAAYFAk8f8l4ACgkQUTlbRTxpHjfqkgCdGBWUijeqe6T1CaJ1EJMm0/WE w6gAn18yjS/TZHk5neg7qSNGgu97Iy7y =Blgc -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Bug#656848: libav-dev package?
On Mi, Jan 25, 2012 at 13:15:31 (CET), Harald Dunkel wrote: On 01/23/12 07:22, Reinhard Tartler wrote: I don't think this would be a great idea. As application maintainer, you should know the requirements of your package, and knowing the libraries it uses is one part of them. Not necessarily. If I debianize a huge package I have to know that it needs ffmpeg or libav at build time, but in which packages the libav development stuff is split into is not important. Well, that's the point where I disagree. That's important for us to know as libav maintainers. BTW, ffmpeg is the name of the deprecated command line tool. Libav is the project name. The next libav update might provide a different set of packages, anyway. That would be insane. If something like this happens, I'd file bugs explaining the situation. Luckily, there are (at least currently) no such plans. Sidenote: I managed to prevent the introduction of libavcore, which got reverted before the 0.7 release. Since then, FFmpeg introduced libswrescale, which does not exist in Libav. Surely the meta package would be something optional. A shortcut to make writing control files easier, esp. if you have to look at the libav version number. To be more specific, during my last archive rebuilds, the exact build dependencies gave me a clue what part of libav a package is using, which was helpful for classifying libav's reverse dependencies. This wouldn't be possible at all if all application packages started to build-depend on some libav-dev package. I surely don't know the details of your analysis, but since you can rebuild libav only as a unit I would have assumed that you had to rebuild all packages that depend upon _any_ libav dev package. Well, take libpostproc as an example. There are currently plans to split libpostproc out to a seperate package, which is likely happen for Libav 0.9 Cheers, Reinhard. -- Gruesse/greetings, Reinhard Tartler, KeyID 945348A4 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Bug#656848: libav-dev package?
Am 23.01.2012 07:22, schrieb Reinhard Tartler: I don't think this would be a great idea. As application maintainer, you should know the requirements of your package, and knowing the libraries it uses is one part of them. Having already considered that idea some years ago, this is exactly what I just wanted to answer! To be more specific, during my last archive rebuilds, the exact build dependencies gave me a clue what part of libav a package is using, which was helpful for classifying libav's reverse dependencies. This wouldn't be possible at all if all application packages started to build-depend on some libav-dev package. The idea is both convenient and sloppy, but I think the latter overweights. To extrapolate the idea, it would be very convenient to have a libeverything-dev package in Debian that pulls in each and every -dev package available. This would vastly reduce the number of Build-Dependencies one has to maintain, but on the other hand make it nearly impossible to tell which part of which project is actually used. ;) - Fabian -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Bug#656848: libav-dev package?
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Package: libav Version: 4:0.8~beta2-3 Severity: wishlist Would you mind to provide a meta package libav-dev requesting all the other libav development packages in the same version? This could make writing package build dependencies much easier. Many thanx in advance Harri -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux) iEYEARECAAYFAk8b3lEACgkQUTlbRTxpHjf9JACfWUTV5KKV7Is8VKh/BH9rT0dF lEEAnjnobbkAgP1mdMCFbE7zOMZBaGMc =SbJr -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Bug#656848: libav-dev package?
tag 656848 wontfix stop On Sun, Jan 22, 2012 at 11:00 AM, Harald Dunkel ha...@afaics.de wrote: -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Package: libav Version: 4:0.8~beta2-3 Severity: wishlist Would you mind to provide a meta package libav-dev requesting all the other libav development packages in the same version? This could make writing package build dependencies much easier. I don't think this would be a great idea. As application maintainer, you should know the requirements of your package, and knowing the libraries it uses is one part of them. To be more specific, during my last archive rebuilds, the exact build dependencies gave me a clue what part of libav a package is using, which was helpful for classifying libav's reverse dependencies. This wouldn't be possible at all if all application packages started to build-depend on some libav-dev package. On a related note, your request is similar to the idea of merging all libav* libraries to a unified libav.so shared object. This would lead to even more frequent SONAME bumps, which would have benefits and drawbacks. I think this is best discussed upstream. -- regards, Reinhard -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
