mplayer dependencies on RPM Fusion

[Andras Simon]

On 11/4/08, Michael Schwendt <mschwendt at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, 4 Nov 2008 00:08:06 +0100, Andras Simon wrote:
>
>> On 11/3/08, Michael Schwendt <mschwendt at gmail.com> wrote:
>> > On Mon, 3 Nov 2008 23:03:45 +0100, Andras Simon wrote:
>> >
>> >> It seems that mplayer's dependencies on RPM Fusion include (perhaps
>> >> indirectly) mencoder, samba-common and samba-winbind. Are these really
>> >> necessary? This does matter on a netbook with 4G SSD.
>> >
>> > It "seems"? No, it's a fact. You can demonstrate it easily.
>> >
>> >   $ rpm -qpR mplayer-1.0-0.97.20080903svn.fc9.1.i386.rpm|grep smb
>> >   libsmbclient.so.0
>>
>> You can, if you've updated mplayer already. I haven't, because I
>> thought I'd ask first.
>
> ??
>
> $ rpm -q mplayer
> package mplayer is not installed
>
> You, too, can download the package with your favourite browser or
> yumdownloader to examine it. No updating of installed packages is
> necessary.

You're right. And I missed the point because I missed the '.rpm' at the end
of the package name above (i.e. I thought you were querying an
installed package, not the rpm file) - sorry about that. But the
reason for my temporary blindness is that I wasn't suspecting a
trivial packaging bug. By "really necessary" I meant (and I realize
that that's not at all obvious) whether the capability that, say
samba-common provides, should really be compiled in mplayer. Or, in
the case of mencoder, which, unlike samba-*, is also an RPM Fusion
package, whether the needed libraries could be separated from mencoder
and both mplayer and mencoder be made dependent on a  new package that
contains those libs.

In other words, my question is not about whether mplayer really
depends on those other packages, but whether it should depend on them.
 And I still think that downloading the rpm file will not answer this.
(I may very well be wrong, of course.) Browsing mplayerhq.hu
may. Or asking about it here.

Andras