Quoting The Wanderer (2013-12-21 18:30:54) > On 12/21/2013 11:08 AM, Moritz Mühlenhoff wrote: > >> Ian Jackson <ijack...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> schrieb: >> >>> Jonas: Is your view that the packages which aren't working properly >>> with libav (including mplayer) should be removed from Debian ?
Thanks for snapping me out of meta whining mode, Ian! >> mplayer doesn't need to be removed because of any compatibility >> issues with libav. It FTBFSes for entirely unrelated reasons since 9 >> months (708140). Obviously packages not working out-of-the-tarball with the libraries available in Debian needs patches and are therefore harder to maintain, which can be an underlying reason for packages becoming unmaintained, but what is the subject of this discussion is *current* state of mplayer, and consequences of that. In short, I agree with Moritz: mplayer is too poorly maintained, and _therefore_ (not because it is linked against libav) it should be dropped. >> It is simply unmaintained. > > If you mean that the package is unmaintained: granted. Yes, a *package* should be dropped because *it* is unmaintained. >> If there were interest it could easily be fixed. to support current >> libav. >> >> But there's simply no point in doing that work, since mpv is so much >> cleaner and better. That remark seems a personal one, and I had hoped he hadn't invited for debate like that: A dropped is not banned. It could be reintroduced later by anyone deciding to take on the needed work for that: Just step up and do it, and simply upload into the archive when it works. No need for discussion here about that. Let's discuss in this thread what are the consequences of the fact that mplayer *package* in *Debian* is currently unfit for release. (or chime in if you disagree with that being a fact) - Jonas -- * Jonas Smedegaard - idealist & Internet-arkitekt * Tlf.: +45 40843136 Website: http://dr.jones.dk/ [x] quote me freely [ ] ask before reusing [ ] keep private
signature.asc
Description: signature
