Quoting Fabian Greffrath (2014-11-22 10:11:43) > I have two more ideas regarding this issue: > > 1) We have two library packages that conflict with each other. Why don't > we have two -dev packages that conflict with each other, then? > > I suggest to introduce a new libavcodec-extra-dev package that depends > on "libavcodec | libavcodec-extra" and change the libavcodec-dev package > to only depend on the regular libavcodec. The shlibs need to get > adjusted accordingly, of course. > > This way, maintainers have a means to consider the possible license > clash at build time and we dont have to juggle conflicts with virtual > packages. > > 2) There seem to be only very few packages which are at risk of a > license clash when the libavcodec-extra package is installed. However, > we currently treat this as the rule, not the exception. > > I suggest to turn the situation around and provide the GPLv3 codecs in > the regular libavcodec package. For the few package for which this could > impose a license problem, we should provide an extra GPLv2 package. > > > So, together with my first proposal this would result in the following > package situation: > > libavcodec-dev depends libavcodec | libavcodec-gpl2 > libavcodec-gpl2-dev depends libavcodec-gpl2 > libavcodec provides all codecs, even the gpl3-compatible ones > libavcodec-gpl2 provides only the gpl2-compatible codecs > libavcodec-extra* is no more > > What do you think?
Looks quite sensible to me! - 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
