Package Details: codecs64 20071007-1

Git Clone URL: (read-only, click to copy)
Package Base: codecs64
Description: Non-linux native codec pack.
Upstream URL:
Licenses: Other
Conflicts: codecs, codecs-extra
Replaces: codecs, codecs-extra
Submitter: lfleischer
Maintainer: fordprefect
Last Packager: fordprefect
Votes: 205
Popularity: 0.68
First Submitted: 2010-09-18 12:26
Last Updated: 2015-07-08 12:18

Latest Comments

« First ‹ Previous 1 2

salviati commented on 2011-11-13 17:53

This package is needed, as archlinuxfr package (20100303) is not up-to-date (all-20110131).

salviati commented on 2011-11-13 17:52

archlinuxfr package (20100303) is not up-to-date (all-20110131).

lfleischer commented on 2011-03-09 23:00


whaler commented on 2010-10-09 03:41

Thanks, cryptocrack. I really don't know the status of I enabled it way back for OpenJDK/IcedTea and a couple other apps. I still have it enabled for an app, but forget which... :) Well, after your clearing up the matter, I guess my original comments are moot. Sorry for the fuss! My real problem is getting Moonlight to work again, but I haven't been able to figure out how. I will try gnome-mplayer and gecko-mediaplayer next...

lfleischer commented on 2010-10-05 11:26

whaler: The codecs package is the same the codecs package used to be before the split, have a look at the source PKGBUILD [1]. I personally think that splitting this package is the better way to go now, since the i686 and x86_64 bit versions use different upstream releases and contain completely different codecs.

In regard to the package name, I think that there shouldn't be duplicate names in the AUR and the official repositories ([core], [extra], [community], [multilib]) and testing repos, of course, but I don't really care about unofficial repos... There are just too much of them you can't really be beware of (the [archlinuxfr] repo is unofficial, isn't it?).


whaler commented on 2010-10-02 22:24

Well, the codecs package at works with x86_64, so I just assume it is different from the codecs package in AUR, where the PKGBUILD says 'i686' now after the split. I am running your x86_64 version now... :) However, for those like myself who have the activated, the version takes priority over packages with the same names in AUR (at least with yaourt). Not a very big deal, but I think it is good practice to use different names for different packages in commonly used repositories for a specific distro.

Yes, I can ask upstream for the latest MS codecs.

lfleischer commented on 2010-10-01 12:24

whaler: The codecs package was in [extra] and has been moved to the AUR, so it just kept the name it had when it was in the official repos. What's the difference between this package and the codecs package that's in the repos? And I don't know anything about upstream plans to update the essential-amd64 package, so if you really want to know, just ask at their mailing lists or something :)

whaler commented on 2010-09-30 21:52

There is a codecs package at and an equally named package in AUR. The packages are different. I suggest the AUR codecs package be named differently, f.inst. codecs686 or some such, for the benefit of people who have the French repository activated. From the date and package number, the codecs package appears to be newer than codecs64. At any rate, codecs64 does not handle the latest Microsoft multimedia codecs. Any hope of an update in the near future? :)