coypu%sdf.org@localhost writes: > I learned the meaning of categories of gstreamer plugins (good, bad, > evil). I think it's not obvious and worth a metion. In general, I really like having DESCR explain this sort of thing. I just looked and it seems to, but maybe that's because you recently fixed it. > good: good license, no patent issues, go for it > bad: bad code / no maintainer etc. > ugly: probably patent issues > > If you can't notice the absence of gst-plugins-bad, it may be a good > idea to avoid adding it as a dependency.* Generally, we try to avoid troublesome dependencies. But I realize it can be a tough call. > There was some mention of e.g. file browsers wanting to display a > thumbnail of videos and using gstreamer plugins, so having the > risky plugin can pose a real risk to a user. > Also, I think they can be installed afterwards and 'just work', but did > not test. > > * this sounds weird because they are not actual dependencies, you can > use the package without them, but a video player unable to play videos > is very weird! If they really are plugins, that's great, because it means that binary packages can be built and people can install what they want. In cases like this, I would lean to having the core apps only depend on safe things (maintained Free software without serious patent issues), and to have an extra meta-package that depends on a larger set, if that seems useful.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature