added "ffmpeg-debian" as the bug is rather fixed there than in the
"ffmpeg" source package. as this issue is now fixed in debian (thanx to
all involved) it's now up to fix it in ubuntu too. for karmic this
should be done with a debian import, but for jaunty we will need a SRU
(https://wiki.ubuntu.c
** Also affects: ffmpeg-debian (Ubuntu)
Importance: Undecided
Status: New
--
libxxx-unstripped should also Provide libxxx
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/312898
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu.
--
ubuntu-bugs ma
** Changed in: ffmpeg-debian (Debian)
Status: Fix Committed => Fix Released
--
libxxx-unstripped should also Provide libxxx
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/312898
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu.
--
ubuntu-bugs mai
** Changed in: ffmpeg-debian (Debian)
Status: New => Fix Committed
--
libxxx-unstripped should also Provide libxxx
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/312898
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu.
--
ubuntu-bugs mailing list
> > Side note: I'm pretty sure, kradio does not require "unstripped"
> > libav*-dev packages.. However, I can't install "regular" ones as well,
> > if I have "kubuntu-restricted-extras" installed (and I have it, since
> > it's useful for me), because they conflict.
>
> So the problem is that you c
** Changed in: ffmpeg-debian (Debian)
Status: Unknown => New
--
libxxx-unstripped should also Provide libxxx
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/312898
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu.
--
ubuntu-bugs mailing list
ubunt
** Also affects: ffmpeg-debian (Debian) via
http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=526007
Importance: Unknown
Status: Unknown
--
libxxx-unstripped should also Provide libxxx
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/312898
You received this bug notification because you are a member o
@Reinhard: many thanks for explain the issue a bit more in detail, cause
now i finally got it. better later than never ;) and BTW i think it was
rather not enough information than misinformation that lead to my wrong
assumptions ;)
@all: and yes with dpkg -i --force-depends i was also able to buil
Off topic:
I had to use a command-line program/email to file that bug in
debian..it's 2009!!! If my kids ever ask me, "Hey pops, what
were you doing in 2009??", I will hang my head in shame and tell them,
"I can tell you, but it's so embarrassing, I'd have to kill you."
--
libxxx-unstrip
I've made a Debian bug report for this problem:
http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-
bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=526007&archived=False&mbox=no
** Bug watch added: Debian Bug tracker #526007
http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=526007
--
libxxx-unstripped should also Provide libxxx
https://bugs
Vladimir Mityukov writes:
> English is not my native language... Do you mean "Build against regular
> libavcodec-dev and then replace this libavcodec-dev by libavcodec-
> unstripped-52"?. Or, should I replace libavcodec-unstripped-52 by
> something?
I mean installing libavcodec-unstripped-52. Th
2Reinhard Tartler:
> In ubuntu, we do not want ANY applications to be built against the
> *unstripped* variants of libavcodec as a saftey guard. If users want to
> do that at home, fine, but we actually cannot do that in ubuntu because
> that introduces just even more confusion as we already have
Chris Carlin writes:
> Ekiga doesn't use libavcodec directly, so just having libavcodec-
> unstripped around isn't enough.
>
In ubuntu, we do not want ANY applications to be built against the
*unstripped* variants of libavcodec as a saftey guard. If users want to
do that at home, fine, but we ac
Did anyone file the debian bug report Reinhard suggested?
If that's the "proper" way to handle this, then let's get to it.
--
libxxx-unstripped should also Provide libxxx
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/312898
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Bugs, which is s
I still think that the simplest solution is what is state in the bug
title:
libxxx-unstripped should also Provide libxxx
I still do not understand what is the problem with that. And is also
semantically correct: libxxx-unstripped *provide* eveything that libxxx
does, plus something more.
--
lib
Ekiga doesn't use libavcodec directly, so just having libavcodec-
unstripped around isn't enough.
Instead, Ekiga's codecs are distributed as plugins built by libopal,
which has to be built against the unstripped-dev package.
bojo42 has packaged all of the codecs that he could (h264 and ilbc, see
Evan Murphy writes:
> I think this bug is keeping Ekiga from recognizing the h263 video codec
> I need.
Why would you need the -dev package for having the h263 codec in ekiga?
--
Gruesse/greetings,
Reinhard Tartler, KeyID 945348A4
--
libxxx-unstripped should also Provide libxxx
https://bugs.
@Evan: --force-depends won't unlock the Ekiga h263 codec because it's
not there to be unlocked in the first place :)
The codecs for Ekiga have to be built through opal (bug 316971) and a
few would require unstripped-dev at build time... but there is no
unstripped-dev, so those codecs are never pac
I think this bug is keeping Ekiga from recognizing the h263 video codec
I need.
> hm, for that use case, you can use the '--force-depends' of dpkg to
> install the -dev packages anyway, I'd say.
I'd like to test whether forcing libavcodec-dev against libavcodec-
unstripped-52 unblocks h263 for Ek
compiling openmovieeditor from source requires gmerlin-avdecoder this depends
on libavutil-dev that is not installed without libavutil49.
Yonas +1
Fix this bug please.
--
libxxx-unstripped should also Provide libxxx
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/312898
You received this bug notification
Please fix this bug! I had this problem when compiling VLC in jaunty:
https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/vlc/+bug/356076
--
libxxx-unstripped should also Provide libxxx
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/312898
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Bugs, which
regarding all those duplicates and the current situation i think a
status of confirmed is adequate
** Changed in: ffmpeg (Ubuntu)
Status: New => Confirmed
--
libxxx-unstripped should also Provide libxxx
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/312898
You received this bug notification because you
i can confirm that this still makes troubles on jaunty, as the rather
common ubuntu-restricted-extra package recommends libavcodec-
unstripped-52. due to apt's default behaviour to install recommendations
nearly everybody with ubuntu-restricted-extra can't use the dev packages
in a clean way. of co
because previously i had the libxxx versions and when updated to jaunty
from intrepid it replaced that with the unstripped ones and removed the
-dev packages
--
libxxx-unstripped should also Provide libxxx
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/312898
You received this bug notification because you are a
arturo writes:
> just updated to jaunty and it seems to install the unstripped packages
> by default,
what makes you think so?
--
Gruesse/greetings,
Reinhard Tartler, KeyID 945348A4
--
libxxx-unstripped should also Provide libxxx
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/312898
You received this bug n
just updated to jaunty and it seems to install the unstripped packages
by default, so the -dev packages conflict with that and to install them
you need to remove software like blender, vlc, gstreamer-ffmpeg... then
you can install it again of course, but it should be better that in the
update the
libav*-dev packages conflict with libav*-unstripped-52. There are two
solutions, imo:
1. fix dependencies between "libav*-dev" and "libav*-unstripped-52" somehow;
2. add new packages: "libav*-unstripped-52-dev".
Note: "libav*-dev" required when building something from sources. For
example: http:/
After reading this thread I still don't really see the problem - I have
the -dev packages and the ideal case would (imo) be, that I can either
choose stripped or unstripped versions of "binaries". I don't really
see, how:
"this would make it possible to build packages against libavcodec-
unstrippe
Reinhard Tartler wrote:
> hm, for that use case, you can use the '--force-depends' of dpkg to
> install the -dev packages anyway, I'd say.
>
> if you really insist that we should add the dependency, let's please
> discuss this in a debian bugreport, ok?
ok, thank you for the hint
--
libxxx-unst
Ludovico Cavedon writes:
> My use case is: qutecom/wengophone video support is disabled at runtime
> if ffmpeg is stripped. Currently I am not able to compile and run it and
> test the video, without keeping on switching between -dev packages and
> unstripped packages,
hm, for that use case, you
Reinhard Tartler wrote:
> Ludovico Cavedon writes:
>> Applications built against the stripped version should be able to run
>> against the unstripped version without recompilation (and in fact
>> qutecom/wengophone is able to); the application should just have fewer
>> or more codecs available (ar
Ludovico Cavedon writes:
> Applications built against the stripped version should be able to run
> against the unstripped version without recompilation (and in fact
> qutecom/wengophone is able to); the application should just have fewer
> or more codecs available (are there other differences btw
Applications built against the stripped version should be able to run
against the unstripped version without recompilation (and in fact
qutecom/wengophone is able to); the application should just have fewer
or more codecs available (are there other differences btw?).
I want to be able to build the
@Ludovico: can you explain that a bit more in detail, as from my point
of understanding i don't get why the unstripped-dev should provide the
stripped-dev. I would say the unstripped should conflicts the stripped
one, of course that would mean you can't build packages that depend on
one or the othe
If you had unstripped-dev, now you would like them to Provide: the
stripped -dev version, otherwise dpkg-buildpackage would refuse to build
it. So the problem would be the same.
But, as I said, if packages in universe are build without multiverse
(which sounds reasonable), I do not see the problem
a good solution to that problem would be a unstripped-dev package in
multiverse, AFAIK you are currently not able to build against the
unstripped packages.
--
libxxx-unstripped should also Provide libxxx
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/312898
You received this bug notification because you are a m
One question: official ubuntu packages in universe are built without
packages from multiverse being available, correct? So this risk should
not be there...
--
libxxx-unstripped should also Provide libxxx
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/312898
You received this bug notification because you are a m
This is my use case: I am maintainig the debian package for qutecom (ex
wengophone). It depends on ffmpeg (so I need libavcodec-dev). At runtime
it will enable video support if h26[13] video encoders are avavilable.
So, in order to test this part, I need to remove -dev and install
-unstripped libra
this would make it possible to build packages against libavcodec-
unstripped-52 by accident.
What's the use case for this? do you want to build packages or your
personal software? If the latter, I'd suggest that you build against a
private copy of ffmpeg anyways. If the first, well, no.
--
libxx
39 matches
Mail list logo
