4 ms·

On Linux Mint I get Error:Dependency is not satisfiable:libavcodec-ffmpeg56(>=7.2.4)|libavcodec-ffmped-extra56(>=7:2.4) Suggestion - The repo does not provid

On Linux Mint I get Error:Dependency is not satisfiable:libavcodec-ffmpeg56(>=7.2.4)|libavcodec-ffmped-extra56(>=7:2.4) Suggestion - The repo does not provide install instructions. For a highly not tech privacy enthusiast, I find it difficult to install for linux.

JoshTriplett 10y ago
Never try to install a package intended for Debian or Ubuntu on another distribution that just happens to use .deb files, unless you have experience dealing with package dependency issues and similar problems. Either use a package intended for the distribution, or use a binary, or build from source. That looks like a version of libavcodec specific to one version of Ubuntu; that package will never work on Debian, another version of Ubuntu, or most non-Debian distributions.
- michel-slm 10y ago
  Can't wait for Flatpak or Snappy to make end-user binary distribution a breeze
  - striking 10y ago
    I can, they're not really all that great as an alternative. Use a better distro with a better packaging mechanism. Instead of inventing something new, use something that already exists.
    - jakebasile 10y ago
      Yes, technological process often comes from not inventing something new. I don't have strong opinions on snappy aside from the name being silly, but taking anti-NIH to the extreme is not how we advance the industry.
      - striking 10y ago
        It's not extreme at all. All you have to do is install a distro with a good packaging system. Arch is wonderful, and I've heard good things about Void and Gentoo. Imagine a package system where you could ask to download node.js, and you'll get the latest version. And that's it. Better yet, imagine having to build a package from source and installing it. You could do it by hand, leaving orphan files all over your system. Or you could write a PKGBUILD that handles installing dependencies, building, and packaging, all in one go. That's what running Arch feels like. Being able to install fresh popular packages, and being able to easily package your own. Try it sometime.
        cyphar 10y ago
        > It's not extreme at all. All you have to do is install a distro with a good packaging system. Arch is wonderful, and I've heard good things about Void and Gentoo. Depends what you classify as criteria for a "good packaging system". Arch didn't even sign their packages until a few years ago, and the build system for their packages is not very good IMO. What makes Arch great is the fact that they have a large library of very up to date packages. Personally (though I'm biased) I like openSUSE's package manager (zypper). It's an enterprise-grade package manager that supports things like patterns and can differentiate between security updates and regular updates. It also supports delta RPMs for patching. > Better yet, imagine having to build a package from source and installing it. You could do it by hand, leaving orphan files all over your system. Or you could write a PKGBUILD that handles installing dependencies, building, and packaging, all in one go. rpmbuild has this. And there's also OBS (the open build system) which was originally written by the openSUSE community but supports many other distributions (including Arch as well as Fedora, Debian and the other usual suspects).
        striking 10y ago
        Right. I'm not advocating for one particular distro. I'm just advocating that people stop using distros with bad package management. Thanks for the list of other stuff to check out, by the way.
- sunnyps 10y ago
  Ha! This is one of the reasons* Chrome ships with its own copy of ffmpeg which this fork decided was a bad thing. * the other being security updates for ffmpeg
  - JoshTriplett 10y ago
    It's a bad thing for Linux platforms, which should use the system version of ffmpeg; however, that's something much easier to solve when you're actually the Linux distribution, rather than a third party. Note that many of the changes in this fork come from the Debian packaging of Chromium.
    - sunnyps 10y ago
      IMO Google is in a better position to deal with ffmpeg security updates than Debian is. Google is spending a lot of effort into fuzz testing ffmpeg[1] and other components of Chrome and also rolls out updates very quickly. I'd expect the distro ffmpeg to not need as much updating if you're only using it for local media that you trust. But Chrome's ffmpeg has to decode media from untrusted sources so it's important that security bugs get fixed ASAP. [1] https://security.googleblog.com/2014/01/ffmpeg-and-thousand-fixes.html https://security.googleblog.com/2014/01/ffmpeg-and-thousand-...
eloston 10y ago
I didn't think the project needed one. After all, I explicitely stated the distribution and version that the binaries are for. If you're looking for a statically-linked Linux binary, that will come in the future: https://github.com/Eloston/ungoogled-chromium/issues/41 https://github.com/Eloston/ungoogled-chromium/issues/41
resonanttoe 10y ago
For what its worth, Linux Mint is generally considered a Frakendebian and pretty bad. I used to use it until I did a bit of reading in to debian distros and Mint's practices. It made me sad. https://lwn.net/Articles/676664/ https://lwn.net/Articles/676664/ https://wiki.debian.org/DontBreakDebian https://wiki.debian.org/DontBreakDebian The nice compromise that I've found is Ubuntu Mate, which seems to do away with Ubuntu's Bloat and Unity crapness, but still maintaining a Debian distro that operates properly (everything comes upstream from Ubuntu repo's) Just something to consider. People might have some other opinions on Mint which would be good to hear too.

JoshTriplett 10y ago

Never try to install a package intended for Debian or Ubuntu on another distribution that just happens to use .deb files, unless you have experience dealing with package dependency issues and similar problems. Either use a package intended for the distribution, or use a binary, or build from source. That looks like a version of libavcodec specific to one version of Ubuntu; that package will never work on Debian, another version of Ubuntu, or most non-Debian distributions.

michel-slm 10y ago
Can't wait for Flatpak or Snappy to make end-user binary distribution a breeze
- striking 10y ago
  I can, they're not really all that great as an alternative. Use a better distro with a better packaging mechanism. Instead of inventing something new, use something that already exists.
  - jakebasile 10y ago
    Yes, technological process often comes from not inventing something new. I don't have strong opinions on snappy aside from the name being silly, but taking anti-NIH to the extreme is not how we advance the industry.
    - striking 10y ago
      It's not extreme at all. All you have to do is install a distro with a good packaging system. Arch is wonderful, and I've heard good things about Void and Gentoo. Imagine a package system where you could ask to download node.js, and you'll get the latest version. And that's it. Better yet, imagine having to build a package from source and installing it. You could do it by hand, leaving orphan files all over your system. Or you could write a PKGBUILD that handles installing dependencies, building, and packaging, all in one go. That's what running Arch feels like. Being able to install fresh popular packages, and being able to easily package your own. Try it sometime.
      - cyphar 10y ago
        > It's not extreme at all. All you have to do is install a distro with a good packaging system. Arch is wonderful, and I've heard good things about Void and Gentoo. Depends what you classify as criteria for a "good packaging system". Arch didn't even sign their packages until a few years ago, and the build system for their packages is not very good IMO. What makes Arch great is the fact that they have a large library of very up to date packages. Personally (though I'm biased) I like openSUSE's package manager (zypper). It's an enterprise-grade package manager that supports things like patterns and can differentiate between security updates and regular updates. It also supports delta RPMs for patching. > Better yet, imagine having to build a package from source and installing it. You could do it by hand, leaving orphan files all over your system. Or you could write a PKGBUILD that handles installing dependencies, building, and packaging, all in one go. rpmbuild has this. And there's also OBS (the open build system) which was originally written by the openSUSE community but supports many other distributions (including Arch as well as Fedora, Debian and the other usual suspects).
        striking 10y ago
        Right. I'm not advocating for one particular distro. I'm just advocating that people stop using distros with bad package management. Thanks for the list of other stuff to check out, by the way.
sunnyps 10y ago
Ha! This is one of the reasons* Chrome ships with its own copy of ffmpeg which this fork decided was a bad thing. * the other being security updates for ffmpeg
- JoshTriplett 10y ago
  It's a bad thing for Linux platforms, which should use the system version of ffmpeg; however, that's something much easier to solve when you're actually the Linux distribution, rather than a third party. Note that many of the changes in this fork come from the Debian packaging of Chromium.
  - sunnyps 10y ago
    IMO Google is in a better position to deal with ffmpeg security updates than Debian is. Google is spending a lot of effort into fuzz testing ffmpeg[1] and other components of Chrome and also rolls out updates very quickly. I'd expect the distro ffmpeg to not need as much updating if you're only using it for local media that you trust. But Chrome's ffmpeg has to decode media from untrusted sources so it's important that security bugs get fixed ASAP. [1] https://security.googleblog.com/2014/01/ffmpeg-and-thousand-fixes.html https://security.googleblog.com/2014/01/ffmpeg-and-thousand-...

eloston 10y ago

I didn't think the project needed one. After all, I explicitely stated the distribution and version that the binaries are for. If you're looking for a statically-linked Linux binary, that will come in the future: https://github.com/Eloston/ungoogled-chromium/issues/41 https://github.com/Eloston/ungoogled-chromium/issues/41

resonanttoe 10y ago

For what its worth, Linux Mint is generally considered a Frakendebian and pretty bad. I used to use it until I did a bit of reading in to debian distros and Mint's practices. It made me sad. https://lwn.net/Articles/676664/ https://lwn.net/Articles/676664/ https://wiki.debian.org/DontBreakDebian https://wiki.debian.org/DontBreakDebian The nice compromise that I've found is Ubuntu Mate, which seems to do away with Ubuntu's Bloat and Unity crapness, but still maintaining a Debian distro that operates properly (everything comes upstream from Ubuntu repo's) Just something to consider. People might have some other opinions on Mint which would be good to hear too.