Debimedia archive

Reinhard Tartler siretart at
Thu Aug 13 08:13:18 UTC 2009

Felipe Sateler <fsateler at> writes:

> El miércoles 12 de agosto, Reinhard Tartler escribió:
>> Felipe Sateler <fsateler at> writes:
>> > Good to know we officially maintain it :p. So this is basically a more
>> > official
>> no comment.
> That was an honest question. is just an additional 
> repository with packages. Does debimedia intend to be just that or something 
> more?

I'd say it depends on the active members that actually work on
debimedia.  Every pkg-multimedia member is of course invited to join
this efford.

ATM I see debimedia as 'the missing bits' of debian that are not allowed
in because of mainly political reasons regarding unheld discussions with
ftp-master and the DPL.  Yes, I do seek more discussion about the
problem, but currently, nobody seems really interested in talking to us
(or me?) about this topic, so I decided to actually do something about

For these reason, I'd like to keep the number of debimedia packages
rather focused on this point.

>> > Hmm, I think there is a big overlap with what agnula/studio64 does. Is
>> > the scope of debimedia much narrower than that of Studio64? (Ie, no
>> > installation images, etc etc?).
>> AFAIUI agnula/studio64 focus on jack and other semi-professional audio
>> related packages. debimedia currently has:
>>  * ffmpeg-extra
>>  * lame
>>  * libquicktime-extra
>>  * xvidcore
>> TBH, I don't see any overlap here. Please correct me if I'm wrong.
> Well, Studio64 is basically Debian plus a few extra packages and a different 
> kernel. It could have been possible to take advantage of their infrastructure. 
> Although if you plan a closer integration with Debian, it makes sense to keep 
> it as small as possible.

Is there a list of these 'extra' packages? AFAIUI they have a different
focus to what I have in mind right now. Which doesn't mean that there is
no room for collaboration, but I first need to fixup my understanding of
Studio64 before proposing or asking anything seriously.

>> > How will we manage bugs to those packages, since they won't have the
>> > BTS infrastructure?
>> As interim solution, I'd suggest to use either alioth tickets or
>> until we find a better solution.
> OK. Perhaps it will be possible to convince the bts admins to allow us to use 
> it.

That would be ideal, indeed.

Reinhard Tartler, KeyID 945348A4

More information about the pkg-multimedia-maintainers mailing list