On 03/05/2012 06:52 PM, Milan P. Stanic wrote: > I don't agree with you here. > For me d-m.o was (and still is) valuable resource. > Some codecs missing in Debian packages because of the policy (I don't > blame Debian for that) and in that case d-m.o is best option for me > because I don't want/have time to package it from the source. >
That's the problem. Normally, that is what it should be for, but it does a lot more. Just tried right now, to add d-m.o repo for Squeeze on my laptop, and here's what it does: The following packages will be REMOVED: libavfilter0 The following NEW packages will be installed: libartsc0 libavfilter1 libavutil50 libbs2b0 libdirac-decoder0 libfaac0 libggi-target-x libggi2 libggiwmh0 libggiwmh0-target-x libgii1 libgii1-target-x libmp3lame0 librtmp0 libva-x11-1 libva1 libvdpau1 libx264-112 libx264-118 libxvidcore4 mplayer-skin-blue The following packages will be upgraded: audacity audacity-data ffmpeg libavcodec52 libavdevice52 libavformat52 libdrm-intel1 libdrm-radeon1 libdrm2 libplib1 libpostproc51 libquicktime1 libswscale0 libvpx0 mplayer It should be working like backports, and force me to use something like -t debian-multimedia when I do apt-get install, it shouldn't just overwrite what I've installed and take the control of my laptop. Or at least, it should *clearly* be explained on the d-m.o website what will happen after the repository is added. Fact is: d-m.o doesn't do any of these to educate the user or explaining what will happen. So yes, d-m.o has few codecs which sometimes I need, but I will NEVER EVER AGAIN trust it enough to add it as a repository in my sources.list. That's unless it acts better, stop setting-up epocs, and understand pinning the way backport.d.o does. Thomas -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/4f54c3f8....@debian.org