Bug 135841 - gstreamer plugins for arts
gstreamer plugins for arts
Status: CLOSED WONTFIX
Product: Fedora
Classification: Fedora
Component: gstreamer-plugins (Show other bugs)
3
All Linux
medium Severity medium
: ---
: ---
Assigned To: Colin Walters
: FutureFeature
Depends On:
Blocks:
  Show dependency treegraph
 
Reported: 2004-10-15 07:20 EDT by Michael A. Peters
Modified: 2008-05-01 11:38 EDT (History)
0 users

See Also:
Fixed In Version:
Doc Type: Enhancement
Doc Text:
Story Points: ---
Clone Of:
Environment:
Last Closed: 2004-10-15 14:23:02 EDT
Type: ---
Regression: ---
Mount Type: ---
Documentation: ---
CRM:
Verified Versions:
Category: ---
oVirt Team: ---
RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host:
Cloudforms Team: ---


Attachments (Terms of Use)

  None (edit)
Description Michael A. Peters 2004-10-15 07:20:09 EDT
From Bugzilla Helper:
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.7.3)
Gecko/20041012 Epiphany/1.4.4

Description of problem:
The current gstreamer-plugins package install two arts related plugins.
Thus the package requires arts - which requires qt.

For people (such as myself) who do not run any software that uses qt
and will never use the arts plugins in gstreamer, gstreamer-plugins
with the arts plugins causes qt to be needed on the system (it can be
nodeps removed, but then it is re-installed whenever yum updates the
gstreamer-plugins package)

Version-Release number of selected component (if applicable):


How reproducible:
Always

Steps to Reproduce:
1.rpm --test -e arts
2.
3.
    

Actual Results:  error: Failed dependencies:
        libartsc.so.0 is needed by (installed)
gstreamer-plugins-0.8.5-1.i386
        libartsflow.so.1 is needed by (installed)
gstreamer-plugins-0.8.5-1.i386
        libartsflow_idl.so.1 is needed by (installed)
gstreamer-plugins-0.8.5-1.i386
        arts is needed by (installed) gstreamer-plugins-0.8.5-1.i386

Additional info:

If these could be packaged in a gstreamer-plugins-arts package, then
qt would not be a required package for virtually every install scheme
Comment 1 Colin Walters 2004-10-15 14:23:02 EDT
I understand it's annoying, but it's too much work and too fragile to break up
the packages, especially considering trying to maintain backwards compatibility.
 Disk space is cheap :)

Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.