Re: Problems affecting the "ffmpeg2" package

[Matthias Scheler <tron%zhadum.org.uk@localhost>]

On Mon, Jan 13, 2014 at 10:51:54AM +0100, Adam Ciarciński wrote:
> > Please see PR pkg/48333 for details. Another problem is that the binary
> > is called "ffmpeg2" which makes the package unsuitable for use by
> > e.g. the "mediatomb" package.
> > 
> > Is there any reason that we still need the "ffmpeg" package? I would
> > like to simply update it to the same versiom as the "ffmpeg2" package.
> > Alternative I would like to change the "ffmpeg2" package to conflict
> > with the "ffmpeg" package and install binary and libraries in the
> > normal place.
> 
> At least multimedia/transcode does not build with ffmpeg 2.x.

Does it build with the latest "ffmpeg" package? I remember that one of
last year's updates to that package broke "ffmpeg2theora" which I fixed
with an update of that package.

>  I am in favour of removing transcode, since it is old (dated 2011),
> unmaintained, and one could use ffmpeg as a replacement tool.

Sounds like a plan.

        Kind regards

-- 
Matthias Scheler                                  http://zhadum.org.uk/