[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Old Index]
Re: Problems affecting the "ffmpeg2" package
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
> 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
David A. Holland
Main Index |
Thread Index |