| Summary: | smplayer spec file requires mplayer... but mpv can be used instead | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Product: | Fedora | Reporter: | Gerald Cox <gbcox> |
| Component: | smplayer | Assignee: | Sérgio Basto <sergio> |
| Status: | RESOLVED FIXED | ||
| Severity: | normal | CC: | fedora |
| Priority: | P5 | ||
| Version: | 23 | ||
| Hardware: | All | ||
| OS: | GNU/Linux | ||
| namespace: | |||
|
Description
Gerald Cox
2016-06-11 14:29:06 CEST
(In reply to comment #0) > I discovered this while building smplayer for F24 since smplayer for F24 is not > yet available. Also, for grins I tried to build mplayer, but it wouldn't build > for F24. mpv had no issues. not a point here > I removed the requires for mplayer for the spec file and built. I also > installed mpv... and smplayer works perfectly. > I understand at one time mplayer was a dependency, but mpv can be used instead > and we really shouldn't force people to install mplayer if it isn't needed. > they are smart enough to know about smplayer to install it, chances are they > already know that in order to use they need either mpv or mplayer. If not, > they'll figure that out quickly. as you said should be a recommendation and not a require but I prefer use require , on not use nothing , when recomends begin to work I'll switch to that , this is not a priority . (In reply to comment #1) Also, for grins I tried to build mplayer, but it wouldn't build > > for F24. mpv had no issues. > > not a point here > The point being that if there is a delay getting mplayer working, that shouldn't prevent people from installing smplayer until whatever issues with mplayer are resolved. Another option is to just use UnitedRPMS for those who don't want mplayer as a requisite. Didn't realize that existed as an option. (In reply to comment #3) > Another option is to just use UnitedRPMS for those who don't want mplayer as a > requisite. Didn't realize that existed as an option. unitedrpms change the requires to mpv ... , I could revert back but I don't understand why you like mpv what mpv does that mplayer don't ? (In reply to comment #4) > (In reply to comment #3) > > Another option is to just use UnitedRPMS for those who don't want mplayer as a > > requisite. Didn't realize that existed as an option. > > unitedrpms change the requires to mpv ... , I could revert back but > I don't understand why you like mpv what mpv does that mplayer don't ? mpv is a newer fork with very active development. From http://goo.gl/sjEKNB "...the developer explains, "MPlayer wants to maintain old code, even if it is very bad code. It seems mplayer2 was forked because MPlayer developers refused to get rid of all the cruft. The mplayer2 and MPlayer codebases also deviated enough to make a reunification unlikely. mplayer2 development is slow, and it is hard to get in changes. Details withheld as to not turn this into a rant. MPlayer rarely merged from mplayer2, and mplayer2 practically stopped merging from MPlayer (not even code cleanups or new features are merged) mpv intends to continuously merge from mplayer-svn and mplayer2, while speeding up development. There is willingness for significant changes, even if this means breaking compatibility." Fixed in smplayer-16.8.0-2 changed spec from requires to recommends mplayer |