[Mplayer-users] Gui; Make error

Arpi arpi at thot.banki.hu
Sat Oct 6 20:53:04 CEST 2001


> Gabucino <gabucino at mplayerhq.hu> writes:
> > Kjetil Torgrim Homme wrote:
> > > You know, if it was legal to make binary packages, a lot of the
> > > clueless people wouldn't have to struggle with compiling.
It is absolutely wrong assumtion. Now we have compile bugreports.
If we distribute binary packages, then we get library dependency
and lib version incompatibility and such bugreports. Even worse.

And also universal packages means a big performance loss (10-20%, you
may say it's not so big, but ask people here at the boundaries of
dvd/divx requirements) because the prog isn't fully optimized to the
given system. This is why distributing binary packages are forbidden.

> > It seems you know nothing about MPlayer internals, though it was
> > explained 1M+ times.
> Sorry, please enlighten me.  The binary codecs are distributed
> separately anyway.  The mix of source code licences is unwieldy, but
> the licences don't seem incompatible.

Who the fuck spoke about licenses????

The reason of no binary packages are pure technical, not legal:

MPlayer code is configured at _compile_time_. So it won't work on
systems which differ a single bit (including available libs, lib
versions, cpu, hardware etc). Making different binaries for each
possible hw/lib combination has no sense (and means 50+ packages).
Making cpu-independent universal binaries is currently impossible.

You may say we are bad. But it doesn't matter.
Using mplayer is not a must. You can move and use aviplay or
whatever you want. Just go away.

Nobody is interested here in your license theory and personal options
and experiences about gcc 2.96. At least none of mplayer developers.

And if you ever RTFM you never ask this.

A'rpi / Astral & ESP-team

mailto:arpi at thot.banki.hu

Mplayer-users mailing list
Mplayer-users at lists.sourceforge.net

More information about the MPlayer-users mailing list