[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Thread Index]
Re: [XaraXtreme-dev] mplayer binary
- From: Vasil Dimov <vd@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 9 Jun 2006 21:25:39 +0300
- Subject: Re: [XaraXtreme-dev] mplayer binary
On Fri, Jun 09, 2006 at 04:32:03PM +0100, Alex Bligh wrote:
> >On Fri, Jun 09, 2006 at 03:24:30PM +0100, Alex Bligh wrote:
> >>How is the mplayer binary meant to work on non-i386 systems, or
> >>non-Linux systems?
> >Distributing this file in SVN:
> >% file bin/mplayer
> >seems completely brain-damaged to me. Not to mention the license issues.
> I think that's a bit OTT. I have no problem (assuming the license issue
> is fixed) with linux 32bit i386 binaries being in svn, if they are only
> being used to go into a linux i386 installer. svn seems like an
> appropriate method of version control (assuming the rest of the
> autopackage stuff is there).
It's no problem for me either, it just looks strange to me.
Btw I didn't mean to offend anyone.
This topic makes me raise a question I have in mind ever since I
started porting XaraLX to FreeBSD and that's the question about
Currently the FreeBSD port has recorded that it needs this external
packages to build:
* dpkg (because of the md5sum utility, btw FreeBSD's one is called md5)
* autoconf, aclocal, automake
* libtool (to provide the AC_LIBTOOL (or something like that) macro
mentioned in configure.in. I do not think it is used for anything
and these to run (e.g. at runtime):
My question is are all these really needed? Especially dpkg and zip?
Should I add mplayer as a run(?) dependency? (this will provide the
mplayer executable in PATH).
PS I read about the external dependencies (md5sum and zip) sometime ago
on the xaralx.org web page and blindly added them without testing what
happens without them being present to save some trouble ;-)
Testing can show the presence of bugs, but not their absence.
-- Edsger W. Dijkstra