[Mageia-dev] gstreamer packaging too split?

[Per Øyvind Karlsen]

2011/7/6 Ahmad Samir <ahmadsamir3891 at gmail.com>:
> On 6 July 2011 15:09, Christiaan Welvaart <cjw at daneel.dyndns.org> wrote:
>> On Wed, 6 Jul 2011, Colin Guthrie wrote:
>>
>>> Yeah it is a bit of a grab-bag of stuff, but again, should we still just
>>> bundle everything together anyway and sod the extra disk space needed?
>>> It would be a lot simpler for users ("oh you need $foo? sure, just
>>> installed -ugly/-bad") which is advise they can get direct from upstream
>>> without having to know our particular packaging quirks.
>>>
>>> As someone who does upstream support for other projects, it's a pain to
>>> put caveats in all your advice for distros you don't know.
>>>
>>> That said, the trade off may be too much, hence the canvassing of
>>> opinions here :)
>>
>> I think there are only 2 solutions:
>> - Add a meta package, e.g. gstreamer-codecs-all that can be used to make
>>  sure all available codecs are installed. Some people complain about
>>  "bad" and "ugly" so using those names more is not a good idea.
>
> But that's how upstream calls them, hiding them won't work, since
> they're too popular already.
>
> FWIW, there's gstreamer0.10-decoders, a meta package in mdv (not
> imported yet in Mageia).
>
>> - Use the packagekit gstreamer plugin, so players install the correct
>>  plugins on demand.
>>
>
> ATM it doesn't work, the urpmi backend needs some love..
I've already given it the tender, love & care required already:
https://gitorious.org/+rpm5distro/packagekit/rpm5distro-packagekit

I *think* the backend itself should be working (ie. 'pkcon what-provides'
behaves as expected), but when testing it with ie. totem, it'll fail installing.

I kinda assumed I was the one to blame, but after discussing with packagekit
upstream devs, they suspected it rather was kpackagekit in cooker that might
be to blame for it's failure as the urpmi backend seemed to be okay..

I was just starting to poke around with gnome-packagekit before leaving the
office today, so I haven't verified it to work with it, but perhaps
some of you'll
beat me to it before I get into work tomorrow..? :)

Note: I've implemented several other features & filters missing from the backend
as well while at it, and I cannot guarantee that I haven't broken anything with
older urpmi/URPM versions (I've tried not to and even fixed my code later on
where I've realized doign so), so lemme know if anything breaks for ya..
(Of course, it would be *way* easier to coordinate any slightest change or what
not with someone remotely interested in communicating)

--
Regards,
Per Øyvind