[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: mumble and celt, #682010, TC


On Thu, Jul 19, 2012 at 12:24:12AM +0100, Ian Jackson wrote:
> The problem with mumble and the celt codec has been referred to the TC
> - see the bug mentioned above.  I would be interested to hear from the
> security and release teams.

I consider there to be two issues which would concern me from a release
point of view:
* That, given the potential problems and issues as discussed in the log,
a sufficiently experienced maintainer can be found to deal with the
package for the supported lifetime of a stable+oldstable release.
* That the package is likely to be able to communicate with non-debian
derived distributions.

If both of these cannot be satisfied, I would consider the package to be
unreleaseable and would look for removal.

>  * Would the release team be happy with a reintroduction for wheezy of
>    the celt package containing the 0.7.1 codec ?  I don't know yet
>    whether mumble would need to be updated too.  Obviously this would
>    have to be done promptly.

Hrm. I'd point out at this point that celt 0.7.1-1 currently exists in
wheezy.  It's not going anywhere because mumble in testing currently
depends on it. For any updates, we would apply the freeze criteria as
specified at http://release.debian.org/wheezy/freeze_policy.html

Additionally, I would not be keen at this stage to update other packages
to re-depend on celt - mumble should be the exception.

I'm also a little disappointed that the version in unstable would cause
communication problems which means that any updates need to go through
t-p-u. I haven't looked at depth in this, but would re-adding the celt
dependancy to the sid package, and getting it back in unstable make the
world happy again?

Finally, it would be wonderful if this could all be sorted out in
unstable and then someone can let us know what's going on with a
coherent message, that would be fantastic.


Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply to: