On Mon, Dec 29, 2008 at 1:34 AM, Scott Horowitz <stonecrest@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Sun, Dec 28, 2008 at 4:23 PM, Pierre Chapuis <catwell@xxxxxxxxxxxx> > wrote: >> >> To me, the only way to use an up-to-date mplayer is to compile it yourself >> on your machine (by using one of the AUR packages). >> >> Making a binary mplayer package is very difficult and the result can't be >> perfect for everybody because you have to make choices about what will be >> enabled in it (and add deps) and what will not (but some users might want >> it). It's the prototype of the package that should stay source-based if >> possible. > > That may be so, but there are binary packages available. And while that is > the case, they should be updated every so often. I mean, ffmpeg is almost 6 > months old and it's tied to revision 14236 - the current revision is 16380! > We are 2000 commits behind, it's astounding. > > Not to mention I recently ran up into a bug where ffmpeg causes mpd to > crash, and it's because the package is so out-dated. And there are other bug > reports as well, dealing with other crashes and broken ogg support: > > http://bugs.archlinux.org/index.php?string=ffmpeg&project=1 > > So the question remains, will these packages be updated anytime soon? > > Back to your point about it being difficult to package - while I realize > there are resource implications to this suggestion, I think the goal would > be to have a couple different binary packages available to hit the most > common uses, like is done with some other packages. I wouldn't throw up my > hands and resort to compiling from source. Any idea how long it takes to > compile mplayer on a p3? Trust me, it's not fun. > > Scott > I would add a feature request on flyspray to at least move mplayer to svn. The mplayer developers have explicitly stated on the MLs many times that they dont care about releasing. Also I dont know who maintains the packages atm, but if the situation is as you say maybe someone else can pick them up. One that actually uses them. Greg
