Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > linux.debian.user > #204606 > unrolled thread

missing avidemux Debian package

Back to article view | Back to linux.debian.user

Contents

  missing avidemux Debian package bapt x <baptx.is@gmail.com> - 2019-01-25 13:10 +0100
    Re: missing avidemux Debian package Andrea Borgia <andrea@borgia.bo.it> - 2019-01-25 13:30 +0100
      Re: missing avidemux Debian package Cindy-Sue Causey <butterflybytes@gmail.com> - 2019-01-25 16:30 +0100
      Re: missing avidemux Debian package Jonathan Dowland <jmtd@debian.org> - 2019-01-25 23:30 +0100
    Re: missing avidemux Debian package deloptes <deloptes@gmail.com> - 2019-01-25 14:40 +0100
    Re: missing avidemux Debian package Frank McCormick <debianlist@videotron.ca> - 2019-01-25 16:40 +0100
      Re: missing avidemux Debian package deloptes <deloptes@gmail.com> - 2019-01-25 16:50 +0100
      Re: missing avidemux Debian package Andrea Borgia <andrea@borgia.bo.it> - 2019-01-25 16:50 +0100
        Re: missing avidemux Debian package David Wright <deblis@lionunicorn.co.uk> - 2019-01-25 17:30 +0100
          Re: missing avidemux Debian package Andrea Borgia <andrea@borgia.bo.it> - 2019-01-25 17:50 +0100
            Re: missing avidemux Debian package deloptes <deloptes@gmail.com> - 2019-01-25 19:50 +0100
              Re: missing avidemux Debian package Andrea Borgia <andrea@borgia.bo.it> - 2019-01-26 10:50 +0100
                Re: missing avidemux Debian package deloptes <deloptes@gmail.com> - 2019-01-26 11:10 +0100
          Re: missing avidemux Debian package deloptes <deloptes@gmail.com> - 2019-01-25 17:50 +0100
            Re: missing avidemux Debian package David Wright <deblis@lionunicorn.co.uk> - 2019-01-25 20:30 +0100

#204606 — missing avidemux Debian package

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw

Hello,

Is there a reason for avidemux video editor is not being in the official
Debian package repository?
I see multimedia packages like VLC video player are present in the official
repository so it should not be a legal problem.
It would be nice to have this package in the official repository instead of
adding an unofficial third-party repository.

Thanks.

Baptiste

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#204607

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw

TLDR it's complicated :)

https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=203211

Il giorno ven 25 gen 2019 alle ore 13:09 bapt x <baptx.is@gmail.com> ha
scritto:

> Hello,
>
> Is there a reason for avidemux video editor is not being in the official
> Debian package repository?
> I see multimedia packages like VLC video player are present in the
> official repository so it should not be a legal problem.
> It would be nice to have this package in the official repository instead
> of adding an unofficial third-party repository.
>
> Thanks.
>
> Baptiste
>

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#204612

On 1/25/19, Andrea Borgia <andrea@borgia.bo.it> wrote:
> TLDR it's complicated :)
>
> https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=203211


Going all DR like that meant you missed the very special message that
your parcel package couldn't be delivered =D


> Il giorno ven 25 gen 2019 alle ore 13:09 bapt x <baptx.is@gmail.com> ha
> scritto:
>
>> Hello,
>>
>> Is there a reason for avidemux video editor is not being in the official
>> Debian package repository?


Lack of Debian repository inclusion will be about things like lack of
enough manpower to maintain a consistent flow of help with
packaging/repackaging it so that it operates seamlessly within Debian.
Original Developer(s)' CHOICE of licensing options plays a part, too.


>> I see multimedia packages like VLC video player are present in the
>> official repository so it should not be a legal problem.
>> It would be nice to have this package in the official repository instead
>> of adding an unofficial third-party repository.


I went on this same hunt a couple years ago after I finally
re-remembered its unusual name. I found it as a stand-alone package
that worked *in my setup*. That same older download still works,
actually. It was one of those self-contained "app" kind of deals.
Xfce4's file manager, Thunar, defines its file type as "AppImage
application bundle".

A quick search of the Web found Sourceforge, but I can't get the page
to load for nothin' k/t local dialup this morning:

https://sourceforge.net/projects/avidemux/

Based on the other sites I'm seeing in my search, it's possible
Sourceforge is where I got mine from (that couple years ago), but I
can't swear to it without seeing Sourceforge actually load up.

Just ran my old copy (2.6.20) to verify it does "actually" work. Its
"Help > About" feature officially refers to the following website that
"very succinctly" aka abruptly points us elsewhere:

http://avidemux.org/

The following is primarily just to have this in the archives relative
to this topic..

The thing about AppImages and other similar similar packaging is that
you have to make a conscious, executive decision regarding how each
one's creators'/owners' licensing works with respect to your own
needs, policies, and usages. When we find packages easily accessible
in the various Debian repositories, very kindly others have already
done the mental drain of that work by researching, verifying, and then
labeling THOUSANDS of packages within the main, contrib, and non-free
child directories. #ThankYOU to those kindly folks! :)

Cindy :)
-- 
Cindy-Sue Causey
Talking Rock, Pickens County, Georgia, USA

* runs with birdseed *

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#204650

On Fri, Jan 25, 2019 at 01:20:29PM +0100, Andrea Borgia wrote:
>TLDR it's complicated :)
>
>https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=203211

Or at least it was. That bug was closed in 2017. There is currently
nobody formally requesting the package nor formally indicating that it
is being worked on:

https://www.debian.org/devel/wnpp/prospective

-- 

⢀⣴⠾⠻⢶⣦⠀
⣾⠁⢠⠒⠀⣿⡁ Jonathan Dowland
⢿⡄⠘⠷⠚⠋⠀ https://jmtd.net
⠈⠳⣄⠀⠀⠀⠀ Please do not CC me, I am subscribed to the list.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#204610

bapt x wrote:

> Hello,
> 
> Is there a reason for avidemux video editor is not being in the official
> Debian package repository?
> I see multimedia packages like VLC video player are present in the
> official repository so it should not be a legal problem.
> It would be nice to have this package in the official repository instead
> of adding an unofficial third-party repository.
> 
> Thanks.
> 
> Baptiste

Put this in your source.list or in /etc/apt/sources.list.d/multimedia.list

deb http://deb-multimedia.org stretch main non-freee

and you have what you want. Check http://www.deb-multimedia.org/ for
details.

regards

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#204615

On 1/25/19 8:25 AM, deloptes wrote:
> bapt x wrote:
> 
>> Hello,
>>
>> Is there a reason for avidemux video editor is not being in the official
>> Debian package repository?
>> I see multimedia packages like VLC video player are present in the
>> official repository so it should not be a legal problem.
>> It would be nice to have this package in the official repository instead
>> of adding an unofficial third-party repository.
>>
>> Thanks.
>>
>> Baptiste
> 
> Put this in your source.list or in /etc/apt/sources.list.d/multimedia.list
> 
> deb http://deb-multimedia.org stretch main non-freee
> 
> and you have what you want. Check http://www.deb-multimedia.org/ for
> details.
> 
> regards
> 

I was under the impression that it has been suggested in the past to not 
use packages from deb-multimedia.org as it causes other problems?


-- 
Frank McCormick

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#204616

Frank McCormick wrote:

> I was under the impression that it has been suggested in the past to not
> use packages from deb-multimedia.org as it causes other problems?

Might be, but for the past 10y I have encountered null. If you mess up with
your system for sure, but all works great on default stretch.

You have to know what you are doing, but also the multimedia
repository/maintainers improved I think. I use many multimedia packages
from there and zero issues (of course not on daily bases).

regards

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#204617

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw

I had TONS of problems upgrading from stable to testing due to libraries
installed from d-m over time, in fact :/
Third time was a charm, though: I had learnt about that and premptively
removed everything that was not in the main repo :)

Il giorno ven 25 gen 2019 alle ore 16:34 Frank McCormick <
debianlist@videotron.ca> ha scritto:

>
>
> On 1/25/19 8:25 AM, deloptes wrote:
> > bapt x wrote:
> >
> >> Hello,
> >>
> >> Is there a reason for avidemux video editor is not being in the official
> >> Debian package repository?
> >> I see multimedia packages like VLC video player are present in the
> >> official repository so it should not be a legal problem.
> >> It would be nice to have this package in the official repository instead
> >> of adding an unofficial third-party repository.
> >>
> >> Thanks.
> >>
> >> Baptiste
> >
> > Put this in your source.list or in
> /etc/apt/sources.list.d/multimedia.list
> >
> > deb http://deb-multimedia.org stretch main non-freee
> >
> > and you have what you want. Check http://www.deb-multimedia.org/ for
> > details.
> >
> > regards
> >
>
> I was under the impression that it has been suggested in the past to not
> use packages from deb-multimedia.org as it causes other problems?
>
>
> --
> Frank McCormick
>
>

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#204620

On Fri 25 Jan 2019 at 16:46:41 (+0100), Andrea Borgia wrote:
> I had TONS of problems upgrading from stable to testing due to libraries
> installed from d-m over time, in fact :/
> Third time was a charm, though: I had learnt about that and premptively
> removed everything that was not in the main repo :)

And to be fair, that has been spelled out in the Release Notes ever
since etch was released in 2007. Before that, the warning was less
explicit.

Cheers,
David.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#204621

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw

Il giorno ven 25 gen 2019 alle ore 17:40 deloptes <deloptes@gmail.com> ha
scritto:


> David Wright wrote:
> > And to be fair, that has been spelled out in the Release Notes ever
> > since etch was released in 2007. Before that, the warning was less
> > explicit.
>

Of course, it was not my intention to blame anyone else but me, I just
wanted to underline the dangers of mixing repositories.
It took a while but it did come back to bite me in the ass :)



> No idea what you are talking about, perhaps I am the only lucky one, or I
> am
> not using the apps that caused your problems
>

It's more like an issue with the libraries than the apps themselves: the
apps in d-m are not in Debian and won't directly be affected. However,
shared libraries in Debian might be upgraded to different versions pulled
in from d-m and that's where the problems will come from during an upgrade.


Regards,
Andrea.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#204631

Andrea Borgia wrote:

> It's more like an issue with the libraries than the apps themselves: the
> apps in d-m are not in Debian and won't directly be affected. However,
> shared libraries in Debian might be upgraded to different versions pulled
> in from d-m and that's where the problems will come from during an
> upgrade.

# dpkg --get-selections before upgrade (is in the upgrade notes AFAIR)

and then need to reinstall packages that are kept back. when reinstalling
they pull the right dependencies. Indeed it is a bit of work ... like
20-30min, but upgrade is done every 3-4y, so ...

regards

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#204661

Il 25/01/19 19:44, deloptes ha scritto:

> # dpkg --get-selections before upgrade (is in the upgrade notes AFAIR > and then need to reinstall packages that are kept back. when reinstalling
> they pull the right dependencies. Indeed it is a bit of work ... like
> 20-30min, but upgrade is done every 3-4y, so ...

Noted, as this tip would have been very useful a few weeks ago :P
Anyhow, I moved to "testing" so this is probably an issue solved for good.

Regards,
Andrea.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#204662

Andrea Borgia wrote:

> Noted, as this tip would have been very useful a few weeks ago :P
> Anyhow, I moved to "testing" so this is probably an issue solved for good.

Well, I hope it will not be the last one for you :)
Read the upgrade notes from Debian - saved me many troubles and I know
people have problems with multimedia, but I think it is possible to solve
them easily if you are experienced.

regards

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#204622

David Wright wrote:

> And to be fair, that has been spelled out in the Release Notes ever
> since etch was released in 2007. Before that, the warning was less
> explicit.

No idea what you are talking about, perhaps I am the only lucky one, or I am
not using the apps that caused your problems

regards

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#204634

Re this:

On Fri 25 Jan 2019 at 16:46:41 (+0100), Andrea Borgia wrote:
> I had TONS of problems upgrading from stable to testing due to libraries
> installed from d-m over time, in fact :/
> Third time was a charm, though: I had learnt about that and premptively
> removed everything that was not in the main repo :)

On Fri 25 Jan 2019 at 17:38:26 (+0100), deloptes wrote:
> David Wright wrote:
> 
> > And to be fair, that has been spelled out in the Release Notes ever
> > since etch was released in 2007. Before that, the warning was less
> > explicit.
> 
> No idea what you are talking about, perhaps I am the only lucky one, or I am
> not using the apps that caused your problems

Who knows—I don't know what others are running, and I'm not the one
having the reported problem.

Quoting the passages:

Release Notes (etch, 2007-08-16):

4.2 Checking system status

The upgrade process described in this chapter has been designed for
upgrades from “pure” sarge systems without third-party packages. In
particular, there are known problems with third-party packages which
install programs under /usr/X11R6/bin/ causing problems with upgrades
due to the X.Org transition (‘XFree86 to X.Org transition’ on page
39). For greatest reliability of the upgrade process, you may wish to
remove third-party packages from your system before you begin upgrading.

Release Notes (stretch, 2017-06-16):

4.2 Checking system status

The upgrade process described in this chapter has been designed for
upgrades from ‘pure’ jessie systems without third-party packages. For
the greatest reliability of the upgrade process, you may wish to
remove third-party packages from your system before you begin upgrading.

Below there are two methods for finding such packages by using either
aptitude or apt-forktracer. Please note that neither of them are 100%
accurate (e.g. the aptitude example will list packages that were once
provided by Debian but no longer are, such as old kernel packages).

Cheers,
David.

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | linux.debian.user

csiph-web