[Bug 312898] Re: libxxx-unstripped should also Provide libxxx
** Changed in: ffmpeg-debian (Debian) Status: Fix Committed = Fix Released -- libxxx-unstripped should also Provide libxxx https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/312898 You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
[Bug 312898] Re: libxxx-unstripped should also Provide libxxx
** Also affects: ffmpeg-debian (Ubuntu) Importance: Undecided Status: New -- libxxx-unstripped should also Provide libxxx https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/312898 You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
[Bug 312898] Re: libxxx-unstripped should also Provide libxxx
added ffmpeg-debian as the bug is rather fixed there than in the ffmpeg source package. as this issue is now fixed in debian (thanx to all involved) it's now up to fix it in ubuntu too. for karmic this should be done with a debian import, but for jaunty we will need a SRU (https://wiki.ubuntu.com/StableReleaseUpdates). as it's a really safe small change in debian/control i don't think this should be a big deal, but i'm not sure if this issue meets the mentioned requirments for a SRU. otherwise we could do a backport, but this won't fix it really good, as most people haven't this repository enabled and then first need to stumble about the bugreport for knowing that the backport packages will solve the issue. any further ideas for a fast fixing in jaunty? -- libxxx-unstripped should also Provide libxxx https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/312898 You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
[Bug 312898] Re: libxxx-unstripped should also Provide libxxx
** Changed in: ffmpeg-debian (Debian) Status: New = Fix Committed -- libxxx-unstripped should also Provide libxxx https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/312898 You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
[Bug 312898] Re: libxxx-unstripped should also Provide libxxx
Side note: I'm pretty sure, kradio does not require unstripped libav*-dev packages.. However, I can't install regular ones as well, if I have kubuntu-restricted-extras installed (and I have it, since it's useful for me), because they conflict. So the problem is that you cannot install kubuntu-restricted-extras with libavcodec-dev at the same time? Is that a real problem? why? Not exactly. The problem is that I can't build some useful program (e.g. KRadio), which requires libav*-dev packages, if I have kubuntu- restricted-extras installed (already installed, long time ago). When I build the KRadio program from sources, it tells me that I won't have internet streaming(the feature, which I actually need the most), because I don't have some libs/headers from ffmpeg. And when I try to install these libs/headers, using aptitude or apt-get -- I get Conflicts with kubuntu-restricted-extras message. There can be some other programs, which are not in the repos (or the repos have outdated versions), but still requiring the same dev packages. .. unfree multimedia experience Here, in Russia, these patents don't have any legal effect. So, it's completely free for some countries ;-) -- libxxx-unstripped should also Provide libxxx https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/312898 You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
[Bug 312898] Re: libxxx-unstripped should also Provide libxxx
** Also affects: ffmpeg-debian (Debian) via http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=526007 Importance: Unknown Status: Unknown -- libxxx-unstripped should also Provide libxxx https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/312898 You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
[Bug 312898] Re: libxxx-unstripped should also Provide libxxx
** Changed in: ffmpeg-debian (Debian) Status: Unknown = New -- libxxx-unstripped should also Provide libxxx https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/312898 You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
[Bug 312898] Re: libxxx-unstripped should also Provide libxxx
I still think that the simplest solution is what is state in the bug title: libxxx-unstripped should also Provide libxxx I still do not understand what is the problem with that. And is also semantically correct: libxxx-unstripped *provide* eveything that libxxx does, plus something more. -- libxxx-unstripped should also Provide libxxx https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/312898 You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
[Bug 312898] Re: libxxx-unstripped should also Provide libxxx
Did anyone file the debian bug report Reinhard suggested? If that's the proper way to handle this, then let's get to it. -- libxxx-unstripped should also Provide libxxx https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/312898 You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
Re: [Bug 312898] Re: libxxx-unstripped should also Provide libxxx
Chris Carlin volk...@gmail.com writes: Ekiga doesn't use libavcodec directly, so just having libavcodec- unstripped around isn't enough. In ubuntu, we do not want ANY applications to be built against the *unstripped* variants of libavcodec as a saftey guard. If users want to do that at home, fine, but we actually cannot do that in ubuntu because that introduces just even more confusion as we already have in this bug. First: Please have a look and understand what actually is stripped. The stripping process just removes some encoder av_register_codec calls. I cannot see how this modification can possibly affect applications building against libavcodec. If you have such an example, please show me. This means: Building against the regular libavcodec-dev package and then replacing libavcodec-unstripped-52 should produce exactly the same result as linking against an unstripped libavcodec-dev package. The latter btw does not exist since it would be byte-identical to the stripped version. Instead, Ekiga's codecs are distributed as plugins built by libopal, which has to be built against the unstripped-dev package. With the rationale above, I can assure you that the 2nd statement has to be built against the unstripped-dev package is plain wrong. I'm currently considering adding an alternate dependency on the -dev packages because of popular request. Provides is the wrong solution since it breaks versioned dependencies. But I'm still unsure if people here are just misguided because of rumor or misinformation. I still have not seen a single case where this chance is absolutely necessary beside from the convenience of not having to install the unstripped package over. -- Gruesse/greetings, Reinhard Tartler, KeyID 945348A4 -- libxxx-unstripped should also Provide libxxx https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/312898 You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
[Bug 312898] Re: libxxx-unstripped should also Provide libxxx
2Reinhard Tartler: In ubuntu, we do not want ANY applications to be built against the *unstripped* variants of libavcodec as a saftey guard. If users want to do that at home, fine, but we actually cannot do that in ubuntu because that introduces just even more confusion as we already have in this bug. Understood. However, I'm not sure, that I got this sentence correctly: This means: Building against the regular libavcodec-dev package and then replacing libavcodec-unstripped-52... ... English is not my native language... Do you mean Build against regular libavcodec-dev and then replace this libavcodec-dev by libavcodec- unstripped-52?. Or, should I replace libavcodec-unstripped-52 by something? Side note: I'm pretty sure, kradio does not require unstripped libav*-dev packages.. However, I can't install regular ones as well, if I have kubuntu-restricted-extras installed (and I have it, since it's useful for me), because they conflict. That's the problem.. -- libxxx-unstripped should also Provide libxxx https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/312898 You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
Re: [Bug 312898] Re: libxxx-unstripped should also Provide libxxx
Vladimir Mityukov mityu...@gmail.com writes: English is not my native language... Do you mean Build against regular libavcodec-dev and then replace this libavcodec-dev by libavcodec- unstripped-52?. Or, should I replace libavcodec-unstripped-52 by something? I mean installing libavcodec-unstripped-52. That in effect will replace the packages libavcodec-dev and libavcodec52. NB: The latter is a dependency of libavcodec-dev. Side note: I'm pretty sure, kradio does not require unstripped libav*-dev packages.. However, I can't install regular ones as well, if I have kubuntu-restricted-extras installed (and I have it, since it's useful for me), because they conflict. So the problem is that you cannot install kubuntu-restricted-extras with libavcodec-dev at the same time? Is that a real problem? why? -- Gruesse/greetings, Reinhard Tartler, KeyID 945348A4 -- libxxx-unstripped should also Provide libxxx https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/312898 You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
[Bug 312898] Re: libxxx-unstripped should also Provide libxxx
I've made a Debian bug report for this problem: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi- bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=526007archived=Falsembox=no ** Bug watch added: Debian Bug tracker #526007 http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=526007 -- libxxx-unstripped should also Provide libxxx https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/312898 You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
[Bug 312898] Re: libxxx-unstripped should also Provide libxxx
Off topic: I had to use a command-line program/email to file that bug in debian..it's 2009!!! If my kids ever ask me, Hey pops, what were you doing in 2009??, I will hang my head in shame and tell them, I can tell you, but it's so embarrassing, I'd have to kill you. -- libxxx-unstripped should also Provide libxxx https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/312898 You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
[Bug 312898] Re: libxxx-unstripped should also Provide libxxx
@Reinhard: many thanks for explain the issue a bit more in detail, cause now i finally got it. better later than never ;) and BTW i think it was rather not enough information than misinformation that lead to my wrong assumptions ;) @all: and yes with dpkg -i --force-depends i was also able to build the opal/ekiga stuff using the unstripped packages. so we don't really need unstripped dev packages for using the unstripped libs in packaging. but anyway we need a solution for the dependency hell right now, as you can only build packages by corrupting the package system and this is not good for PPAs and everything else beside chroot. as for the rivalling of *ubuntu-restricted-extras and the dev packages, i would argue that even people who do some packaging or compiling should be able to do this on the same machine they use for their unfree multimedia experience. (meaning without a lot of package installation :) -- libxxx-unstripped should also Provide libxxx https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/312898 You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
[Bug 312898] Re: libxxx-unstripped should also Provide libxxx
compiling openmovieeditor from source requires gmerlin-avdecoder this depends on libavutil-dev that is not installed without libavutil49. Yonas +1 Fix this bug please. -- libxxx-unstripped should also Provide libxxx https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/312898 You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
[Bug 312898] Re: libxxx-unstripped should also Provide libxxx
I think this bug is keeping Ekiga from recognizing the h263 video codec I need. hm, for that use case, you can use the '--force-depends' of dpkg to install the -dev packages anyway, I'd say. I'd like to test whether forcing libavcodec-dev against libavcodec- unstripped-52 unblocks h263 for Ekiga, and I was trying to use the above command but couldn't make it work. Could someone show me the error in sudo dpkg --force-depends -i libavcodec-dev? For the record, I also tried installing libavcodec52 and libavcodec-dev (instead of the unstripped version, since it excludes -dev), along with their dependencies, but this didn't solve my problem. -- libxxx-unstripped should also Provide libxxx https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/312898 You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
[Bug 312898] Re: libxxx-unstripped should also Provide libxxx
@Evan: --force-depends won't unlock the Ekiga h263 codec because it's not there to be unlocked in the first place :) The codecs for Ekiga have to be built through opal (bug 316971) and a few would require unstripped-dev at build time... but there is no unstripped-dev, so those codecs are never packaged at all. bojo42 is here looking to resolve that by requesting an unstripped-dev (I think). Anyway, it looks like this bug is unfortunately muddled by different packages being affected by the stripped/unstripped issue in different ways. Sucks. -- libxxx-unstripped should also Provide libxxx https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/312898 You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
Re: [Bug 312898] Re: libxxx-unstripped should also Provide libxxx
Evan Murphy evanrmur...@gmail.com writes: I think this bug is keeping Ekiga from recognizing the h263 video codec I need. Why would you need the -dev package for having the h263 codec in ekiga? -- Gruesse/greetings, Reinhard Tartler, KeyID 945348A4 -- libxxx-unstripped should also Provide libxxx https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/312898 You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
[Bug 312898] Re: libxxx-unstripped should also Provide libxxx
Ekiga doesn't use libavcodec directly, so just having libavcodec- unstripped around isn't enough. Instead, Ekiga's codecs are distributed as plugins built by libopal, which has to be built against the unstripped-dev package. bojo42 has packaged all of the codecs that he could (h264 and ilbc, see his ekiga ppa) but he couldn't do h263 without unstripped-dev -- libxxx-unstripped should also Provide libxxx https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/312898 You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
[Bug 312898] Re: libxxx-unstripped should also Provide libxxx
regarding all those duplicates and the current situation i think a status of confirmed is adequate ** Changed in: ffmpeg (Ubuntu) Status: New = Confirmed -- libxxx-unstripped should also Provide libxxx https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/312898 You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
[Bug 312898] Re: libxxx-unstripped should also Provide libxxx
Please fix this bug! I had this problem when compiling VLC in jaunty: https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/vlc/+bug/356076 -- libxxx-unstripped should also Provide libxxx https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/312898 You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
[Bug 312898] Re: libxxx-unstripped should also Provide libxxx
i can confirm that this still makes troubles on jaunty, as the rather common ubuntu-restricted-extra package recommends libavcodec- unstripped-52. due to apt's default behaviour to install recommendations nearly everybody with ubuntu-restricted-extra can't use the dev packages in a clean way. of course this not an (meta)package from the default installation, but as i said it is really common to install it, so i am at least for fixing the dependencies. -- libxxx-unstripped should also Provide libxxx https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/312898 You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
[Bug 312898] Re: libxxx-unstripped should also Provide libxxx
just updated to jaunty and it seems to install the unstripped packages by default, so the -dev packages conflict with that and to install them you need to remove software like blender, vlc, gstreamer-ffmpeg... then you can install it again of course, but it should be better that in the update the normal libxxx packages get installed or that the -dev pacakges could be installed using the unstripped ones. -- libxxx-unstripped should also Provide libxxx https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/312898 You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
Re: [Bug 312898] Re: libxxx-unstripped should also Provide libxxx
arturo art...@openframeworks.cc writes: just updated to jaunty and it seems to install the unstripped packages by default, what makes you think so? -- Gruesse/greetings, Reinhard Tartler, KeyID 945348A4 -- libxxx-unstripped should also Provide libxxx https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/312898 You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
[Bug 312898] Re: libxxx-unstripped should also Provide libxxx
because previously i had the libxxx versions and when updated to jaunty from intrepid it replaced that with the unstripped ones and removed the -dev packages -- libxxx-unstripped should also Provide libxxx https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/312898 You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
[Bug 312898] Re: libxxx-unstripped should also Provide libxxx
libav*-dev packages conflict with libav*-unstripped-52. There are two solutions, imo: 1. fix dependencies between libav*-dev and libav*-unstripped-52 somehow; 2. add new packages: libav*-unstripped-52-dev. Note: libav*-dev required when building something from sources. For example: http://kradio.sourceforge.net/ -- libxxx-unstripped should also Provide libxxx https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/312898 You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
[Bug 312898] Re: libxxx-unstripped should also Provide libxxx
After reading this thread I still don't really see the problem - I have the -dev packages and the ideal case would (imo) be, that I can either choose stripped or unstripped versions of binaries. I don't really see, how: this would make it possible to build packages against libavcodec- unstripped-52 by accident. would be a problem. If I compile whole ffmpeg by myself, I may too compile against *unstripped* by accident... I tried the --force-depends, and fortunately got the -dev packages + *unstripped*, but I think it's a bit too much of a hassle. Without this (maybe standard, but still) trick, the *unstripped* packages are basically not installable (because of dependencies etc.) and thus unusable... And of course, aptitude's still screaming about the unsatisfied depedencies (-dev=*stripped*)... The dev packages are mostly used by developers, who in turn (mostly) know, why they install *unstripped*... I would vote for fixing the provides/replaces/conflicts for these packages. -- libxxx-unstripped should also Provide libxxx https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/312898 You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
Re: [Bug 312898] Re: libxxx-unstripped should also Provide libxxx
Ludovico Cavedon ludovico.cave...@gmail.com writes: Applications built against the stripped version should be able to run against the unstripped version without recompilation (and in fact qutecom/wengophone is able to); the application should just have fewer or more codecs available (are there other differences btw?). check debian/strip.sh in the ffmpeg-debian package I want to be able to build the official package using the stripped-dev libs and run it against the unstripped runtime. well, that's how all packages in debian and ubuntu are currently built. I fail to see the problem here? Yes I could work in a chroot, but sometimes it is annoying I can only recommend building packages in clean chroots... The only valid use case for this request I could imagine would be if there was some packages that really requires the libavcodec-unstripped-52 installed and does not work with libavcodec52 at all. I haven't seen such a package so far, though... -- Gruesse/greetings, Reinhard Tartler, KeyID 945348A4 -- libxxx-unstripped should also Provide libxxx https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/312898 You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
Re: [Bug 312898] Re: libxxx-unstripped should also Provide libxxx
Reinhard Tartler wrote: Ludovico Cavedon ludovico.cave...@gmail.com writes: Applications built against the stripped version should be able to run against the unstripped version without recompilation (and in fact qutecom/wengophone is able to); the application should just have fewer or more codecs available (are there other differences btw?). check debian/strip.sh in the ffmpeg-debian package Looks like there are no other differences I want to be able to build the official package using the stripped-dev libs and run it against the unstripped runtime. well, that's how all packages in debian and ubuntu are currently built. I fail to see the problem here? That was in answer to bojo42, who was proposing unstripped-dev packages. Yes I could work in a chroot, but sometimes it is annoying I can only recommend building packages in clean chroots... I agree, but sometimes for development and testing it is convenient to work outside. The only valid use case for this request I could imagine would be if there was some packages that really requires the libavcodec-unstripped-52 installed and does not work with libavcodec52 at all. I haven't seen such a package so far, though... I am not referring to this case. My use case is: qutecom/wengophone video support is disabled at runtime if ffmpeg is stripped. Currently I am not able to compile and run it and test the video, without keeping on switching between -dev packages and unstripped packages, -- libxxx-unstripped should also Provide libxxx https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/312898 You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
Re: [Bug 312898] Re: libxxx-unstripped should also Provide libxxx
Ludovico Cavedon ludovico.cave...@gmail.com writes: My use case is: qutecom/wengophone video support is disabled at runtime if ffmpeg is stripped. Currently I am not able to compile and run it and test the video, without keeping on switching between -dev packages and unstripped packages, hm, for that use case, you can use the '--force-depends' of dpkg to install the -dev packages anyway, I'd say. if you really insist that we should add the dependency, let's please discuss this in a debian bugreport, ok? -- Gruesse/greetings, Reinhard Tartler, KeyID 945348A4 -- libxxx-unstripped should also Provide libxxx https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/312898 You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
Re: [Bug 312898] Re: libxxx-unstripped should also Provide libxxx
Reinhard Tartler wrote: hm, for that use case, you can use the '--force-depends' of dpkg to install the -dev packages anyway, I'd say. if you really insist that we should add the dependency, let's please discuss this in a debian bugreport, ok? ok, thank you for the hint -- libxxx-unstripped should also Provide libxxx https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/312898 You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
[Bug 312898] Re: libxxx-unstripped should also Provide libxxx
@Ludovico: can you explain that a bit more in detail, as from my point of understanding i don't get why the unstripped-dev should provide the stripped-dev. I would say the unstripped should conflicts the stripped one, of course that would mean you can't build packages that depend on one or the other at once. Generally my reason for wanting a unstripped-dev is that i could let the PPA system build packages that need the stripped stuff of ffmpeg, without hosting a own ffmpeg package in my PPA. Beside i would think this would also make things easier when preparing packages for multiverse, as you just have to add a unstripped-dev as build depends and you got all the nasty stuff. I stumbled of this when i tried to get all of Ekiga's non free plugins into my PPA for easy sharing to friends of mine who need those. Maybe i'm missing something, so please correct me or explain :), but i don't get why there is no nasty dev package of ffmpeg, since i thought there was one in Medibuntu. best regards bojo42 -- libxxx-unstripped should also Provide libxxx https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/312898 You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
[Bug 312898] Re: libxxx-unstripped should also Provide libxxx
Applications built against the stripped version should be able to run against the unstripped version without recompilation (and in fact qutecom/wengophone is able to); the application should just have fewer or more codecs available (are there other differences btw?). I want to be able to build the official package using the stripped-dev libs and run it against the unstripped runtime. Yes I could work in a chroot, but sometimes it is annoying -- libxxx-unstripped should also Provide libxxx https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/312898 You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
[Bug 312898] Re: libxxx-unstripped should also Provide libxxx
this would make it possible to build packages against libavcodec- unstripped-52 by accident. What's the use case for this? do you want to build packages or your personal software? If the latter, I'd suggest that you build against a private copy of ffmpeg anyways. If the first, well, no. -- libxxx-unstripped should also Provide libxxx https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/312898 You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
[Bug 312898] Re: libxxx-unstripped should also Provide libxxx
This is my use case: I am maintainig the debian package for qutecom (ex wengophone). It depends on ffmpeg (so I need libavcodec-dev). At runtime it will enable video support if h26[13] video encoders are avavilable. So, in order to test this part, I need to remove -dev and install -unstripped libraries. However I see your point about building against the wrong package... -- libxxx-unstripped should also Provide libxxx https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/312898 You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
[Bug 312898] Re: libxxx-unstripped should also Provide libxxx
One question: official ubuntu packages in universe are built without packages from multiverse being available, correct? So this risk should not be there... -- libxxx-unstripped should also Provide libxxx https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/312898 You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
[Bug 312898] Re: libxxx-unstripped should also Provide libxxx
a good solution to that problem would be a unstripped-dev package in multiverse, AFAIK you are currently not able to build against the unstripped packages. -- libxxx-unstripped should also Provide libxxx https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/312898 You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
[Bug 312898] Re: libxxx-unstripped should also Provide libxxx
If you had unstripped-dev, now you would like them to Provide: the stripped -dev version, otherwise dpkg-buildpackage would refuse to build it. So the problem would be the same. But, as I said, if packages in universe are build without multiverse (which sounds reasonable), I do not see the problem of having libxxx- unstripped packages in multiverse Provide: libxxx -- libxxx-unstripped should also Provide libxxx https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/312898 You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
