Re: [Bug 312898] Re: libxxx-unstripped should also Provide libxxx
Vladimir Mityukov 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
Re: [Bug 312898] Re: libxxx-unstripped should also Provide libxxx
Chris Carlin 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
Re: [Bug 312898] Re: libxxx-unstripped should also Provide libxxx
Evan Murphy 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
Re: [Bug 312898] Re: libxxx-unstripped should also Provide libxxx
arturo 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
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
Re: [Bug 312898] Re: libxxx-unstripped should also Provide libxxx
Ludovico Cavedon 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: > Ludovico Cavedon 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 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
