Open Suse 11 Multimedia Pack Portable 2008

I have created a Multimedia Pack portable for Open Suse, the included programs and codecs are:

  1. kchmviewer
  2. mplayer, mplayer plugin
  3. audacious
  4. k3b, k3b-codecs
  5. sox
  6. devede
  7. audacity
  8. avidemux
  9. ffmpeg
  10. transcode
  11. ntfs-config
  12. vlc
  13. libdvdcss
  14. w32codecs
  15. xine
  16. xmms
  17. dvdShrink
  18. k9copy
  19. Gtkpod
  20. Acetoneiso
  21. Furiousiso
  22. DVD::RIP
  23. Amarok
  24. Kaffeine
  25. kmplayer
  26. Kdvdcreator
  27. K3guitune
  28. Kdvdauth
  29. DVDAauthorWizard
  30. Kguitar
  31. Mjpegtools
  32. Soundconverter
  33. Gdvdcreator
  34. Asunder
  35. Brasero
  36. Smplayer

plus some gstreamer plugins

you can install any of the above without internet, they include all the dependencies, just unzip the both files into a folder named MMP2008 and create a repository from that folder as a simple rpm folder in yast, then make a search in the yast installer with the name of the program and check it to install it, this is very important if you dont have internet at home, and besides, by default Open Suse doesnt include several codecs due to license matters.

The links are:

NOTE: These were tested with Open Suse 11 x86 with KDE 3.5

I created a blog about the MMP 2008 Multimedia Pack 2008 Para Open Suse 11 « Weblog Tecnologico

Special thanks to doctorjohn2, that is working in a similar proyect and added the first 14 packages.

Thank you.:slight_smile:

I will try tomorrow. Will inform you of results.


hm, please name the authors of all those packages…

to help you: this packages are all prepared by the packman team. I think it is not very polite to grab those packages and zip them and then provide them as your “own” package.

You’re own work is only to grab them and create a zip file of it to provide it as own work. This is very “unpolite”!

So get a own account on the SuSE build-server to create packages or help the packman team. But don’t vamporize our work and provide our packages as your work.

I dont remember when I said that I created those rpm, or I appear as the author of any of them?, what I said is that I made a package, a more compact compilation, a quick download for people without internet, in fact not all are from packman repository, I solved some dependencies with if you look closer, and some from the program proyect itself, I am not even a programer just someone that had a problem, found the solution and take it the time to help people to not deal with the problem the way I did, and in that way promote the use of linux, vampire, I dont think so, but I admit that I would loved to act as one in “Interview with the Vampire”, Homework for me: read the GPL again, I think I get it wrong specially this part “This program is free software: you can redistribute it and/or modify it under the terms of the GNU General Public License as published by the Free Software Foundation”.

I am not a thief if that is what you meant, that is why I use OpenSource, I even mention who had the original idea of this compilation, read the last line of the first post.

I would ignore those noises. The spirit of open source is that we have a rule to follow, and that rule does not include mentioning the author(s). I may package your cluster of multimedia packages and send them to my friends. I will not mention your name (& I don’t think you expect anyone to do that, either), but no one will think that I did all the work, and everyone knows they come from the big “open source” family. That’s what’s important.

Thanks a whole lot for your efforts and contributions. I am sure you will ignore the unpleasant noise.

Thanks pwzhangz, you are right, I dont pay attention to that, and I dont beleve that those words of egoism represent the opinion of the community, I fact I created an Extra package that add the following:

Gstreamer plugins dependencies

Remember that you must split everything in the same folder.

dependencies are to install all the gstreamer plugins already included in the first two zip files, this extra is not needed to install any of the programs of the first list, and as usual, you dont need internet to install them in a PC, you are invited to download this packs and add your favorite programs if they are not included, make your own package and upload it to the internet, so everybody can get the software and people without internet can install the programs easily at home, in my local area I am giving copies of this software absolutely free, people doesnt have to pay anything, even for the media.

This is the link:

Thanks for a great project, some of my friends without an internet connection really appreciate this. Do you have or have you heard of anyone doing this for the 64bit edition of opensuse 11.0, kde 3.59

Did someone tried this package under Open SUSE 11.0 + KDE 4.0 ?

I’m just download it, and will try to install at evening.

Very handy, thanks a bunch.

hmm, any of you seen this ? OpenSuSE 11.0 Some Packages+Dependencies June 2008 - openSUSE Forums


Yes I did, I mention that in my first post “Special thanks to doctorjohn2, that is working in a similar proyect and added the first 14 packages” and he is also working in a x64 compilation too I think, I posted a reference to this work in his thread also, he explain how to do this compilations too.

All work good.
Thanks alot for great offline package =)
It’s realy nice to download one file and have no massages like “You need to install something first”. Usually it take 1-2 days to install something (copying information from work and installing at home).

I recall one of the reasons that there was an xorg fork from xfree86 was due to the xfree86 authors wanting their names mentioned in the package (which is not strictly in accordance to the GPL).

Still, if I was a user who did not have internet access, and if I read the blog Multimedia Pack 2008 Para Open Suse 11 « Weblog Tecnologico , I would want to know where these packages came from, before I made the effort to go to an internet cafe and download the many megabytes of applications in the file. …

The efforts of Easgs and doctorjohn2 are very very much appreciated, but I do believe a significant improvement to the blog page would be to note which applications come from videolan, packman, other-3rd-party-source, openSUSE distribution itself. Maybe they are all custom compiled? (I doubt that, but I am trying to make a point). It does not have to be a detailed, list, … just a summary statement.

I know if I was forced to download applications from an internet cafe to give my PC multimedia, I probably would NOT download custom compiled apps from a user who I did not know, when I knew I could get applications built by Packman packagers, which see higher useage, and thus more likely IMHO to have less problems (as problems are reported).

I have helped a number of users who mixed videolan with packman packaged applications, and their audio and video had problems. If I were a user who was about to download the zipped file, I would have concerns if I did not know where the packages were packaged.

So please do not view this as a negative comment, but I think user oct2pus has a point, … not from a “credit” perspective, but rather from a “quality” and a “functionality” perspective, so that users know what they are getting.

Again, I want to emphasize that the efforts of Easgs and doctorjohn2 are very very much appreciated, and I think a very small “tweak” to the blog would go a long ways to making this superb implementation even better.

Further to this, I believe the GPL requires one make the source code available. From what I see, Easgs, you are not doing that.

I think that is easily “fixed” and that is to simply reference where you are getting the packages from.

Please do not see this in a negative manner, as I am very appreciative of what you have done, as I know there is a lot of work required in putting such a package together, checking the dependencies, and keeping track of exactly what versions of different apps work with each other.

But the GPL requires one ALSO distribute the source code.

I think you can get away with NOT distributing the source code by specifically mentioning where it can be obtained, … ie reference the Videolan, or Packman, or openSUSE site from where the packages came from, as they either provide the source code in an rpm, or they reference the developers site. Once you have completed this source code mention once, I do not think it is a lot of work to keep up (as no further maintenance is needed, since it is only a text “pointer” in a blog ).

But to not do that could be construed as a violation of the GPL requiring source code.

Thanks for your understanding, and I do appreciate the work you have put into this.

Hi oldcpu, all comments are welcome, but I do mention something about it in the blog, it is in Spanish and english too, please read the last note at the end of the blog, it says.

“The original idea of this work was taked from the OpenSuse forum and was started from a previus compilation, your are welcome to take it and add your favorite programs if they are not included, and public your own compilation in the internet, but always keeping the original idea that the programs can be installed in any pc that doesn`t have internet access, all the RPM comes from different repositories, check a specific file to know the procedence.”

I writed that after the oct2pus post.

I don`t mention any names precisely to avoid problems, I think I have to move it to the begining so anybody can read it, if you have a suggestion to modify it your are welcome to post it here, so I can paste it in the blog, no problem.

The problem that I found with the packman repo is that some aplications doesn`t has their dependencies in the repo itself, so I had to look for them somewhere else, that was the only solution that I found, in fact I taked care to download only packages builded to work with opensuse 11, but you say that this can lead to problems, so, what else can be done.

I think that the problem of linux and the his dependence to the internet to install programs via repo is something serious, in some countries only the 2 % of the people has internet at home, even some little business doesnt have it, you cant go to a friends house install linux and tell him that if he doesnt have internet hi will not be able to watch a movie or listen his mp3 collection (he will probably kick me out of his home and install Windows again that doesnt have the codec but you can install them without internet), a solution is need it, I almost went crazy the first time I tried to install xine 3 years ago, and I admit it, I felt so frustrated that I bought a copy of Windows XP, now I found the doctorjohn2s pack and I said “hey excellent idea, I will add more packs”, I hope someone more prepared build another one more accurate, because I prefer download two or three big files at once than have to go different times to a cyber caffe to download a 45kb file just to get home and discover that I need anther 105 kb file.

I read the English part before, but it doesn’t address my points, with my points being:

a. you are not compliant with the GPL. Your zip/tarball file (what ever the compression) is a form of distribution, and if you distribute, to be compliant with the GPL, you are supposed to include the source code. You are NOT doing that. You are supposed to do that. … Now I am proposing a work around where you point to the source code as packaged by the packager. You have to know too, that often the packager WILL modify the developers source code, so you must either include the source code of the packager, or reference the packagers site. … Now I think I am correct in this, and perhaps someone who understands the GPL better than I can correct me.

b. I would want DIRECT traceability to the packager, and I don’t get that with your site. Now a simple reference to the packager will provide that. As it stands now, I would not download the package from you myself, nor would I recommend a user download. Just the contrary, … with no traceability, and no source codes, openSUSE users are at a SERIOUS RISK. Maybe an MS-Windows user converted to a Linux user would, but I would not.

As it stands now, I applaud your efforts, but my recommendation is any user who downloads from you takes the security risk serious, because the traceability to packages which are controlled (for a number of reasons, including security) is at risk of being lost.

Its one thing to credit individuals, … its something else to make available and track the source code and track where the package is built. IMHO there is no requirement in the GPL to credit individuals but there IS a GPL requirement to include the source code (or at least reference to where it can be downloaded “as packaged” ) AND there is also what I see as common sence in providing the source and originator of the packaging, so users can make their own quality judgment.

My recommendation is until you address those points is that users DO NOT DOWNLOAD the package.

  • its a security risk
  • its a GPL violation.

Also, to conclude, its an incredibly SIMPLE thing to address. Just add a para on your blog as to where the rpms came from. Its that simple.

I just wanted to add (again) that what you are doing by this packaging is REALLY REALLY REALLY good.

But please, there are some fundamentals in linux wrt free opensource software and the GPL, and many of us do take this serious.

And this IS fundamental.

Please just add the reference as to where the source code is for the specific packages.


I’ve been chatting on IRC #opensuse-chat about this, to see if I am being a jerk on this …

… its possible I am overzealous …

The view of some is it is possible I am being a bit harsh. …

This reference was pointed out to me:
Frequently Asked Questions about the GNU Licenses - GNU Project - Free Software Foundation (FSF)

Am I complying with GPLv3 if I offer binaries on an FTP server and sources by way of a link to a source code repository in a version control system, like CVS or Subversion?
This is acceptable as long as the source checkout process does not become burdensome or otherwise restrictive. Anybody who can download your object code should also be able to check out source from your version control system, using a publicly available free software client. Users should be provided with clear and convenient instructions for how to get the source for the exact object code they downloaded—they may not necessarily want the latest development code, after all.

So the question I am trying to answer is how the package you are providing meets that requirement.

Its quite possible I’m being too opinionated on this … I think a few simple sentences on your blog would provide what is necessary … but I am going to pause on this for a while, … ponder it … do some other things … and then get back.

Please, not to be forgotten is that what you are doing by this packaging is REALLY REALLY REALLY good. Your efforts are VERY MUCH appreciated. I just want to be certain we (the opensource community) don’t leave open any doors that are easy to close.

Thanks for your understanding.