Providing non-stripped ffmpeg libraries

[Reinhard Tartler]

Andres Mejia <mcitadel at gmail.com> writes:

> Hi all,
>
> Just want to propose some alternative to providing unstripped ffmpeg libraries 
> other than having users build it from the git repo.
>
> So right now, ffmpeg-debian is the source package that builds the current 
> libraries, -dev packages, doc package, and the other packages that are part of 
> ffmpeg. Also right now, we all know that both the source package and the 
> libraries are crippled in the sense that these packages do not provide certain 
> encoders that are important to a lot of users.

exactly!

> I would like to bring back the issue of having an ffmpeg package in non-free [1]. 
> To me, it seems ftp-master is at least willing to consider providing an 
> unmodified form of ffmpeg in non-free with the various mpeg and h26* encoders 
> enabled.

What makes you think so? From my private irc queries, Ganneff has
indicated to me exactly the opposite. Moreover, public requests like
#522373 are actively being ignored.

> Seeing how we were trying to provide unstripped library packages, I 
> propose that we provide these unstripped library packages in the non-free 
> component of the archive with some changes.

We could of course just upload them, but I fear they will rot in new and
Ganneff/mhy will refuse to leave any comment on that.

> I propose the name of the source package be left as 'ffmpeg' and that the source 
> be unmodified. In this way, we can assure users that this is an unmodified version 
> of the ffmpeg source as is checked out from SVN.
>
> Second issue is the binary packages that are provided. We can have the ffmpeg 
> source package just build the unstripped libraries just as it was being done 
> before.
>
yes, that was the original idea with renaming the source package in main
to 'ffmpeg-debian'. At that time, ffmpeg upstream were really angry
about the situation in debian. Renaming seemed to me a good idea for
indicating to both upstream and users that we are shipping something
that is based on, but functionally different to what upstream
provides. Nowadays, I think they are in some ways even respecting us,
just note how fast your patches have been applied! (It wasn't the case
when I started working on the package)

> With the unstripped libraries, I propose that we do not call the libraries lib*-
> unstripped, but instead, keep them named exactly as their counterparts from the 
> ffmpeg-debian source package (i.e. libavcodec52, libavformat52, etc.). In this 
> way, users who activate the non-free component would have the proper library 
> automatically installed for them.

this would cause different binary packages with the same name but
different versions in the archive, right?

> With the issue of keeping the name of the binary packages for the library the 
> same, this is assuming some things. For one, the main packages in the archive 
> are seperated from the non-free package in the archive anyway. That is, they 
> reside in their own directory (pool/main/f/ffmpeg-debian, pool/non-free/f/ffmpeg) 
> so there will never be any name conflicts with the library packages. Also, the 
> main and non-free component have their own 'Packages' file, so even though there 
> would be two binary packages with the same name for each ffmpeg library in the 
> archive, the location of the library packages would be different according to the 
> 'Filename' field of each package inside each of the 'Packages' file for either the 
> main or non-free component.

Technically yes, but are you really sure that dak plus all archive tools
that the archive administrators use can cope with this?

Also keep in mind that ubuntu already ships the unstripped variants, and
the users are rather happy with that. I really doubt that this will work
over there.

> Or two (this is the method I prefer), we keep the version of one package higher 
> than the other, through the use of an epoch. In this case, the version of the 
> packages in non-free should be the ones with a higher version. This is assuming 
> that the majority of users of the ffmpeg library will want to use the unstripped 
> libraries. The minority can either not activate the non-free component, or 
> provide the proper apt-pinning.

this can also be achieved with adding a suffix to the debian
revision.  Your 2nd method also includes having 2 binary packages with
the same name in the archive.

> Thoughts?
>
> One more thing, if this has already been proposed somewhere, forgive me for 
> making you read such a long email. I could not find any other proposals besides 
> the url I provided, and the proposal to have users build from the git repo.
>
> 1. http://lists.alioth.debian.org/pipermail/pkg-multimedia-maintainers/2007-December/000671.html

The idea with the shlibs trick came originally from Loic Minier, I've
implemented it then. I believe it was early 2008, but I have to search
my local archives. I have a vague memory that we didn't consider your
idea at that time, but TBH, I don't think this is technically possible
with the neither the debian nor the ubuntu archive.

-- 
Gruesse/greetings,
Reinhard Tartler, KeyID 945348A4