[MPlayer-DOCS] [RFC] Binary packaging guidelines, second draft

[The Wanderer]

Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski wrote:


> With the release of MPlayer 0.90pre9 all licensing issues have been
> eliminated and all code is licensed under either the GPL or a
> GPL-compatible license. This allows the creation and distribtion of binary
> packages.

Typo: "distribution".

> Libavcodec MUST always be in the latest development version and it SHOULD
> be linked statically into mplayer binary, because MPlayer requires a
> recent libavcodec snapshot. While some distributions provide ffmpeg
> packages containing shared libavcodec library, they are often based on the
> last "relase" version of ffmpeg, which is quite old and will usually not
> function with MPlayer.

Typo: "release".

I'm also of the opinion that capitalization, or lack thereof, can be
part of the correct spelling of a word/name - and specifically, I don't
think that the word "libavcodec" is spelled with any capital letters,
even when it occurs at the beginning of a sentence. Others may disagree,
though, and if need be I'm content to let this remain a personal
idiosyncrasy.

> /usr/share/man/man1/            manpage
> /usr/share/man/XX/man1/         translated manpage

Diego objected to these - "man page" should be two words.

> You SHOULD provide an option to rebuild the package with full debug
> information enabled (by passing --enable-debug=3 to ./configure and
> disabling any stripping of binaries and libs during the build process).
> For example my source RPM can be rebuilt with "--with debug" option, which
> does just that, making it easier to supply gdb information along any bug
> reports, while retaining all benefits of using binary packages.

Omitted word: "along with any bug reports"

Other than that it mostly looks good to me.

-- 
       The Wanderer

Warning: Simply because I argue an issue does not mean I agree with any
side of it.

A government exists to serve its citizens, not to control them.