Bug#658084: libav-extra: Really necessary?
dr at jones.dk
Wed Feb 1 10:49:47 UTC 2012
On 12-02-01 at 10:24am, Fabian Greffrath wrote:
> Am 31.01.2012 17:55, schrieb Reinhard Tartler:
> >Legally, I don't think there is much difference here. However, there
> >is a practical difference for Debian as distribution: we do not
> >violate the packages if users install a combination of packages that
> >result to a license clash. Yes, we can add conflicts, and probably
> >have to if we become aware of it, but we cannot be held responsible
> >for funky stuff that random users do on their (own) systems.
> Reminds me of the libcurl situation. We have both libcurl (linked
> against openssl) and libcurl-gnutls packages in Debian. The latter is
> for packages with licenses incompatible to openssl's one. However,
> nothing prevents you from installing the openssl-linked libcurl
> package on your system if you wish so.
I believe multiple flavors of libcurl is installable concurrently, which
means dependent packages can link against a specific one as licensing
With libav you provide no way for dependent packages to ensure their
licensing is respected.
> What parts of libav are actually affected by the two additional
> codecs? I guess it's only libavcodec (and maybe libavformat). If it
> really boils down to rebuild only one library with aditional
> confflags, I begin to like Andres' idea more and integrate libav-extra
> into the libav package.
If ok legally then certainly that's most elegant.
* Jonas Smedegaard - idealist & Internet-arkitekt
* Tlf.: +45 40843136 Website: http://dr.jones.dk/
[x] quote me freely [ ] ask before reusing [ ] keep private
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Size: 836 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
More information about the pkg-multimedia-maintainers