FAQ Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read
» Video Reviews

» Linux Archive

Linux-archive is a website aiming to archive linux email lists and to make them easily accessible for linux users/developers.


» Sponsor

» Partners

» Sponsor

Go Back   Linux Archive > Debian > Debian Development

 
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
 
Old 03-05-2012, 02:42 PM
Reinhard Tartler
 
Default debian-multimedia.org considered harmful, Was: Unofficial repositories on 'debian' domains

On Mon, Mar 5, 2012 at 9:29 AM, Thijs Kinkhorst <thijs@debian.org> wrote:

>> But before getting there, the question is whether the existence of the
>> website (and its popularity) poses problem to Debian reputation and/or
>> to the activity of official Debian multimedia packaging. I think this is
>> a question for the Debian Multimedia Maintainers (as in
>> <pkg-multimedia-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org>) to answer. If they
>> see a problem with debian-multimedia.org, we should get in touch with
>> the website maintainers and solve the issue.
>
> Of course, one of the reasons debian-multimedia exists is precisely
> because it's unofficial: it can package things that Debian out of policy
> doesn't want to package. This is not something that can necessarily be
> solved on a packaging level.

A recurring problem we have in pkg-multimedia is that
debian-multimedia.org provides packages that replace both applications
and libraries that we already ship with Debian. Especially for
libraries, this can (and in fact, this does happen regularly) lead to
crashes which are very hard to diagnose. Therefore, we have a policy
to just close a bug with a very short explanation if we notice that
the crash involves a package from debian-multimedia.org; everything
else is absolutely not worth the trouble. Cf. also [1].

Friendly discussion with the maintainer of debian-multimedia.org to
not replace libraries such as libavcodec and friends have failed
ultimatively (BTW, that is part of the reason why we've ended up with
an epoch of '4', dmo uses epoch '5'); he has repeatedly shown that is
not interested in collaborating with pkg-multimedia at all. He also
does not seem interested in installing libraries in a way that they do
not interfere with 'official' Debian packages (e.g., by changing
SONAMES, or installing in private directories, etc.).

While debian-multimedia.org has gained a reputation of providing
packages, which were desperately lacking in Debian,
IMO this repository has turned into a major source of trouble and
pissed users provoking flamewars in the recent past. There is still a
number of remaining multimedia-related packages that we still lack in
Debian, and pkg-multimedia is working on getting at least the most
popular ones packaged and uploaded - help, as always, is of course
very appreciated. [2]

In summary, I can only advise everyone against enabling that
repository on any machine.

[1] http://wiki.debian.org/DebianMultimedia/FAQ

[2] There are also a few additional, non-multimedia related packages,
such as acroread and similar non-free stuff. If you really need those,
I'd suggest to install them without enabling the repository via apt.

--
regards,
* * Reinhard


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/CAJ0cceYKTr9Fgpf9mCCUVpMTQwpZZOtGVKzrA7DroS73!HWw@ mail.gmail.com
 
Old 03-05-2012, 09:04 PM
Andreas Tille
 
Default debian-multimedia.org considered harmful, Was: Unofficial repositories on 'debian' domains

On Mon, Mar 05, 2012 at 04:42:50PM +0100, Reinhard Tartler wrote:
> In summary, I can only advise everyone against enabling that
> repository on any machine.

If I would have time to become a pkg-multimedia member I would try to
establish installing multimedia applications via metapackages build be
the Blends framework. I would most probably drop some file

/etc/apt/preferences.d/01-disable-dmo.pref

in multimedia-config metapackage (where all other metapackages usually
depend from). This would enable those users who really know what they
are doing picking singular packages via well defined preferences from
d.m.o if needed and prevent users who blindly inject "random sources"
inside their sources.list from killing their system.

Kind regards

Andreas.

--
http://fam-tille.de


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Archive: 20120305220409.GG546@an3as.eu">http://lists.debian.org/20120305220409.GG546@an3as.eu
 
Old 03-05-2012, 10:46 PM
Jonas Smedegaard
 
Default debian-multimedia.org considered harmful, Was: Unofficial repositories on 'debian' domains

On 12-03-05 at 11:04pm, Andreas Tille wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 05, 2012 at 04:42:50PM +0100, Reinhard Tartler wrote:
> > In summary, I can only advise everyone against enabling that
> > repository on any machine.
>
> If I would have time to become a pkg-multimedia member I would try to
> establish installing multimedia applications via metapackages build be
> the Blends framework. I would most probably drop some file
>
> /etc/apt/preferences.d/01-disable-dmo.pref
>
> in multimedia-config metapackage (where all other metapackages usually
> depend from). This would enable those users who really know what they
> are doing picking singular packages via well defined preferences from
> d.m.o if needed and prevent users who blindly inject "random sources"
> inside their sources.list from killing their system.

Please let us stop this deroute.

Yes, d-m.o is problematic, but so is potentially *any* package cocktail
involving unofficial packages. Heck, even involving only official
packages but across well-tested-together repositories.

Let's not turn this into a witch hunt.


- Jonas

--
* Jonas Smedegaard - idealist & Internet-arkitekt
* Tlf.: +45 40843136 Website: http://dr.jones.dk/

[x] quote me freely [ ] ask before reusing [ ] keep private
 
Old 03-06-2012, 08:15 AM
Andreas Tille
 
Default debian-multimedia.org considered harmful, Was: Unofficial repositories on 'debian' domains

On Tue, Mar 06, 2012 at 10:23:33AM +0900, Norbert Preining wrote:
> On Di, 06 Mr 2012, Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
> > > the Blends framework. I would most probably drop some file
> > >
> > > /etc/apt/preferences.d/01-disable-dmo.pref
> > >
> > > in multimedia-config metapackage (where all other metapackages usually
>
> And I would file a serious bug against that. There is no reasoning
> behind that is in any way reasonable.
>
> Only because these are providing similar packages starting
> a "hunting down the enemies" race is irrational, or even worse,
> simply stupid.

In how far is it stupid that if a metapackage intends to install a set
of _Debian_ packages featuring multimedia tasks to make sure that really
these packages are installed while enabling a user to install, say
acrobat reader in addition without influencing the set of multimedia
packages available inside Debian? It is not about hunting down anything
but installing reasonable preconfiguration - local admin can override
this for sure.

I wonder what criterion of serios bug would apply here. Just for the
sake of interest because I do not intend to implement this personally.

Kind regards

Andreas.

--
http://fam-tille.de


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Archive: 20120306091502.GB26346@an3as.eu">http://lists.debian.org/20120306091502.GB26346@an3as.eu
 
Old 03-06-2012, 07:13 PM
Christoph Anton Mitterer
 
Default debian-multimedia.org considered harmful, Was: Unofficial repositories on 'debian' domains

Hey.

Stupid question... but even for those packages, which Debian provides
now itself (by the fine work of the pkg-multimedia-maintainers)... are
they build with all the options enabled?

I believe to remember that there were some cases where mp4 stuff was
disabled then...


I surely haven't had to work as closely with Christian as you guys
did,.. but I sometimes notified him of packages which used to show up in
Debian (libaacs and friends) and he dropped them from DMO.


Cheers,
Chris.
 
Old 03-08-2012, 10:46 AM
Vincent Lefevre
 
Default debian-multimedia.org considered harmful, Was: Unofficial repositories on 'debian' domains

On 2012-03-05 16:42:50 +0100, Reinhard Tartler wrote:
> Friendly discussion with the maintainer of debian-multimedia.org to
> not replace libraries such as libavcodec and friends have failed
> ultimatively (BTW, that is part of the reason why we've ended up with
> an epoch of '4', dmo uses epoch '5'); he has repeatedly shown that is
> not interested in collaborating with pkg-multimedia at all. He also
> does not seem interested in installing libraries in a way that they do
> not interfere with 'official' Debian packages (e.g., by changing
> SONAMES, or installing in private directories, etc.).

It's worse than that. Security support is non-existent, and users
don't know that. An example:

http://lists.debian.org/debian-user-french/2010/08/msg00006.html

where a user recommended flashplayer-mozilla from debian-multimedia
(debian-multimedia.org), saying that it was working very well. What
he didn't say (and there was no information on debian-multimedia.org
either), is that this was a version with critical vulnerabilities
known since June 2010:
http://www.adobe.com/support/security/bulletins/apsb10-14.html

--
Vincent Lefvre <vincent@vinc17.net> - Web: <http://www.vinc17.net/>
100% accessible validated (X)HTML - Blog: <http://www.vinc17.net/blog/>
Work: CR INRIA - computer arithmetic / AriC project (LIP, ENS-Lyon)


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Archive: 20120308114637.GD3804@xvii.vinc17.org">http://lists.debian.org/20120308114637.GD3804@xvii.vinc17.org
 
Old 03-08-2012, 11:35 AM
Philipp Kern
 
Default debian-multimedia.org considered harmful, Was: Unofficial repositories on 'debian' domains

On 2012-03-08, Vincent Lefevre <vincent@vinc17.net> wrote:
> It's worse than that. Security support is non-existent, and users
> don't know that. An example: [… non-free package …]

Well, non-free in Debian proper doesn't have security support neither. But
then I guess one could argue that users at least know that this is the case,
don't they?

Kind regards
Philipp Kern


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Archive: slrnjlh9t9.5cg.trash@kelgar.0x539.de">http://lists.debian.org/slrnjlh9t9.5cg.trash@kelgar.0x539.de
 
Old 03-08-2012, 02:09 PM
Vincent Lefevre
 
Default debian-multimedia.org considered harmful, Was: Unofficial repositories on 'debian' domains

On 2012-03-08 12:35:53 +0000, Philipp Kern wrote:
> On 2012-03-08, Vincent Lefevre <vincent@vinc17.net> wrote:
> > It's worse than that. Security support is non-existent, and users
> > don't know that. An example: [… non-free package …]
>
> Well, non-free in Debian proper doesn't have security support neither. But
> then I guess one could argue that users at least know that this is the case,
> don't they?

No, the package was *not* a non-free package, it was in "main".
I did the remark at that time:

http://lists.debian.org/debian-user-french/2010/08/msg00082.html

So, again, this is really misleading for the end user.

--
Vincent Lefèvre <vincent@vinc17.net> - Web: <http://www.vinc17.net/>
100% accessible validated (X)HTML - Blog: <http://www.vinc17.net/blog/>
Work: CR INRIA - computer arithmetic / AriC project (LIP, ENS-Lyon)


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Archive: 20120308150958.GE3804@xvii.vinc17.org">http://lists.debian.org/20120308150958.GE3804@xvii.vinc17.org
 
Old 03-10-2012, 08:07 AM
Eric Valette
 
Default debian-multimedia.org considered harmful, Was: Unofficial repositories on 'debian' domains

While debian-multimedia.org has gained a reputation of providing
packages, which were desperately lacking in Debian,
IMO this repository has turned into a major source of trouble and
pissed users provoking flamewars in the recent past. There is still a
number of remaining multimedia-related packages that we still lack in
Debian, and pkg-multimedia is working on getting at least the most
popular ones packaged and uploaded - help, as always, is of course
very appreciated. [2]


The problem is that debian per se
1) is unusable for any serious multimedia usage.
what are the version of VLC, ffmpeg, xbmc provided by debian?
2) has long pretended they have the knowledge to make multimedia
packages better than other



Instead of arguing you should be pleased someone makes debian useable
for multimedia activities otherwise people will move to ubuntu where
also multimedia packages are maintained via non official PPA


Have you heard of raspberrypi, cubox, spark, that are making the buzz.
What is demoed on it: multimedia capabilities. Will debian be
attractiive without multimedia packages: no.



In summary, I can only advise everyone against enabling that
repository on any machine.


Crap: I've been using that for ages (running debian since 96) with
experimental+unstable and it is rock solid. Maintainer also fixes issues
and respond to bug report more correctly than some other official
package maintainer.


--eric





--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Archive: 4F5B19BA.8010803@free.fr">http://lists.debian.org/4F5B19BA.8010803@free.fr
 
Old 03-10-2012, 09:14 AM
Thomas Goirand
 
Default debian-multimedia.org considered harmful, Was: Unofficial repositories on 'debian' domains

On 03/10/2012 05:07 PM, Eric Valette wrote:
> The problem is that debian per se
> 1) is unusable for any serious multimedia usage.

1/ I don't agree.
2/ Please define "serious".

> what are the version of VLC, ffmpeg, xbmc provided by debian?

In where? Stable? SID? Backports? FYI, you can check all
of this easily by yourself using packages.debian.org. Or
are you trying to make the point that Debian has outdated
packages?

> 2) has long pretended they have the knowledge to make multimedia
> packages better than other

There's nobody pretending. Only facts that d-m.o does break
things in plain Debian. That's facts, together with with the
explanations and things we've found. If there are issues that
you have found in the Debian packages, the Debian bug tracker
is open to anyone to send bugs, and Debian is also widely open
to contributions. Have you ever contributed anything to Debian?

> Instead of arguing you should be pleased someone makes debian useable
> for multimedia activities otherwise people will move to ubuntu where
> also multimedia packages are maintained via non official PPA

I don't think anyone is trying to argue with anyone. And you,
instead of complaining about behaviors of Debian maintainers,
like you just do above, you should push others to participate
in Debian itself, rather than working on their own stuff.

Or even better: consider helping yourself. I don't think that
the debian multimedia maintainers ever refused help.

> Have you heard of raspberrypi, cubox, spark, that are making the buzz.
> What is demoed on it: multimedia capabilities. Will debian be
> attractiive without multimedia packages: no.

It's up to *anyone* (eg: including yourself) to make this change.
And by the way, I have read many people writing that Debian
would be a very good choice for raspberry pi. I do think that
Debian Squeeze has a very nice set of packages that will make
a good fit for this platform. What do you think will be lacking
exactly?

>> In summary, I can only advise everyone against enabling that
>> repository on any machine.
>
> Crap: I've been using that for ages (running debian since 96) with
> experimental+unstable and it is rock solid.

Sorry, after having the pain of d-m.o breaking my Lenny to
Squeeze upgrade, and seeing that d-m.o introduces some
epoc in the package version (at least recently for VLC)
which breaks plain Debian, you absolutely *cannot* say
that it's rock solid. That's just not the case at all.

Also, someone else made the point that Christian Marilla
doesn't want to work directly in Debian, which I believe
is the main issue here.

> Maintainer also fixes issues and respond to bug report more correctly
> than some other official package maintainer.

Please give facts and proves the sentence above. As much
as I can tell by this thread, it has been demonstrated that
packages in d-m.o do not have serious security upgrades.
Also, please explain here how the official packages aren't
giving security upgrades in a correct way. Debian has a
security tracker, a security repository, and a security team
which takes care of all these, and is in tight relationship
with other distros. Can you say the same for d-m.o?

It's very easy to point fingers at others, without giving proof
of what you are writing, and without proposing any help.
I find this a very bad attitude.

Thomas


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Archive: 4F5B2982.1040401@debian.org">http://lists.debian.org/4F5B2982.1040401@debian.org
 

Thread Tools




All times are GMT. The time now is 07:29 AM.

VBulletin, Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO ©2007, Crawlability, Inc.
Copyright 2007 - 2008, www.linux-archive.org