'codecs' confusion

Lockheed · 2012-02-15 07:52:32

I am running a 64bit Arch, and from what I gather, I always had 'codecs' package installed.

I was trying to update the system today, but run into this:

==> Continue building codecs ? [Y/n]
==> --------------------------------
==> 
==> Building and installing package
==> ERROR: codecs is not available for the 'x86_64' architecture.
    Note that many packages may need a line added to their PKGBUILD
    such as arch=('x86_64').
==> ERROR: Makepkg was unable to build codecs.
==> Restart building codecs ? [y/N]
==> -------------------------------

If this is not supported by 64 bit, why do I have it installed and in queue for auto update?
If it does support 64 bit, then why the error?

Last edited by Lockheed (2012-02-15 08:14:15)

hadrons123 · 2012-02-15 08:44:25

What package are you trying to install?

.:B:. · 2012-02-15 08:46:13

Lockheed wrote:

I am running a 64bit Arch, and from what I gather, I always had 'codecs' package installed.
I was trying to update the system today, but run into this:
==> Continue building codecs ? [Y/n]
==> --------------------------------
==> 
==> Building and installing package
==> ERROR: codecs is not available for the 'x86_64' architecture.
    Note that many packages may need a line added to their PKGBUILD
    such as arch=('x86_64').
==> ERROR: Makepkg was unable to build codecs.
==> Restart building codecs ? [y/N]
==> -------------------------------
If this is not supported by 64 bit, why do I have it installed and in queue for auto update?
If it does support 64 bit, then why the error?

Nofi, but: have you actually read the message above those questions?

If you have: did you try any of the suggestions it makes (there's a huge one you can't miss).
If you have not: why are you opening this topic then?

Why are you asking why you installed an AUR package (albeit as a dependency for another AUR package)? Nobody but you decides what to install from the AUR.

Last edited by .:B:. (2012-02-15 08:50:27)

Lockheed · 2012-02-15 08:55:36

hadrons123, I am just trying to update the system, not installing anything new.

.:B:., I read your post few but still have no idea what are you talking about. Can you rephrase?

Army · 2012-02-15 09:00:59

In short: You won't need that package! Except if you have media files in VERY strange formats

Lockheed · 2012-02-15 09:03:03

What about decoding xvid, x264, amr etc? I though this package is for that.

Anyway, it still does not explain why do I have a package which is not available for my platform.

bohoomil · 2012-02-15 09:04:36

If this is not supported by 64 bit, why do I have it installed and in queue for auto update?

The point is that answering a question like the one above is totally up to you. If you know what makes the content of the package then you should know if you need it or not.

If you use mplayer, you shouldn't bother with it because with all the native plugins you should be able to play (almost) any existing / popular media file. However, if you want to have circa 100 MB of useless libs just 'in case' E.T. sends you an ancient file to watch, then keep it.

hadrons123 · 2012-02-15 09:05:11

@lockheed

Did you try

Note that many packages may need a line added to their PKGBUILD
such as arch=('x86_64').

as it says?

Edit:
There are some formats that doesn't play with stock codecs.But xvid , amr, x264 already plays with stock installation of vlc and smplayer.

Last edited by hadrons123 (2012-02-15 09:08:00)

Lockheed · 2012-02-15 11:06:01

Thanks.

$ yaourt -Rss codecs
/usr/bin/pacman -Rss codecs
Password: 
checking dependencies...

Targets (1): codecs-20100303-1

Total Removed Size:     0.52 MiB

Not that much, after all.

Mr.Elendig · 2012-02-15 15:01:41

Lockheed wrote:

What about decoding xvid, x264, amr etc? I though this package is for that.
Anyway, it still does not explain why do I have a package which is not available for my platform.

ffmpeg does it all, so does gstreamer and xine libs, and all media players worth using uses one or more of those libs.

Also, the codecs package is available for 64bit, but it is next to useless, because almost all the codecs are 32bit only, so you would need a 32bit media player to use them.
Not that any media players uses the codecs from the codecs package anymore anyway.

Gusar · 2012-02-15 15:11:08

Mr.Elendig wrote:

Not that any media players uses the codecs from the codecs package anymore anyway.

mplayer still does. I think xine-lib does too. But the thing is, they're not needed anymore. All formats that are in actual use in the wild have native implementations inside ffmpeg/libav.

Mr.Elendig · 2012-02-15 15:25:58

Gusar wrote:

Mr.Elendig wrote:
Not that any media players uses the codecs from the codecs package anymore anyway.
mplayer still does. I think xine-lib does too. But the thing is, they're not needed anymore. All formats that are in actual use in the wild have native implementations inside ffmpeg/libav.

only for some real media codecs etc that ffmpeg does not support yet(which noone uses anyway), and only in 32bit mplayer.

Last edited by Mr.Elendig (2012-02-15 15:26:40)

Gusar · 2012-02-15 16:29:18

Mr.Elendig wrote:

only for some real media codecs etc that ffmpeg does not support yet

All of these Real formats have been reverse engineered quite some time ago.

Mr.Elendig wrote:

and only in 32bit mplayer.

Not even that is fully true, as some Real codecs are available as 64bit Linux libraries that mplayer can load. But yeah, most of the stuff in the package are 32bit Windows DLLs which indeed only work with a 32bit mplayer.

Arch Linux

#1 2012-02-15 07:52:32

'codecs' confusion

#2 2012-02-15 08:44:25

Re: 'codecs' confusion

#3 2012-02-15 08:46:13

Re: 'codecs' confusion

#4 2012-02-15 08:55:36

Re: 'codecs' confusion

#5 2012-02-15 09:00:59

Re: 'codecs' confusion

#6 2012-02-15 09:03:03

Re: 'codecs' confusion

#7 2012-02-15 09:04:36

Re: 'codecs' confusion

#8 2012-02-15 09:05:11

Re: 'codecs' confusion

#9 2012-02-15 11:06:01

Re: 'codecs' confusion

#10 2012-02-15 15:01:41

Re: 'codecs' confusion

#11 2012-02-15 15:11:08

Re: 'codecs' confusion

#12 2012-02-15 15:25:58

Re: 'codecs' confusion

#13 2012-02-15 16:29:18

Re: 'codecs' confusion

Board footer