Re: Problems affecting the "ffmpeg2" package

[David Holland <dholland-pkgtech%netbsd.org@localhost>]

On Mon, Jan 13, 2014 at 09:37:15AM +0000, Matthias Scheler 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.

There are 31 packages using it (vs. 6 using ffmpeg2) (and 11 using
ffmpeg010). I have no idea how many of those will work with it; given
the history of ffmpeg it might be a good idea to come up with a
migration scheme.

 > Alternative I would like to change the "ffmpeg2" package to conflict
 > with the "ffmpeg" package and install binary and libraries in the
 > normal place.

That sounds necessary independent of what scheme we come up with for
moving forward.

-- 
David A. Holland
dholland%netbsd.org@localhost