Re: Bug#682010: #682010 re celt and mumble referred to the TC
Ron writes ("Bug#682010: #682010 re celt and mumble referred to the TC"):
> I don't want to niggle over words here, but "chosen" would imply that
> somebody actually exercised some conscious judgement in that decision.
> Which there doesn't really seem to be a whole lot of evidence for.
> Nobody from Ubuntu has ever spoken to me or upstream about this, and
> the version they are shipping appears to simply have been auto-imported
> from Debian with no changes or human intervention. There are open bugs
> in launchpad like:
> - LibCelt Package Breaking Apt-Get
> - package libcelt0-0 0.7.1-1 failed to install/upgrade:
You are implying that the package does not work in Ubuntu. However I
have personally witnessed Ubuntu users using it. You seem to be
grasping at straws.
> So the only rational conclusion there is that Ubuntu will do whatever
> we do - and naturally they will then lag somewhat. If we are to insist
> on not changing things until they do, then we're going to be deadlocked
> shipping obsolete, unmaintained, code for a long time ...
Alternatively we could wait until the new opus codec is widely
deployed. Mumble upstream do have a transition plan. I don't think
"pull the plug on celt" is a transition plan.
> > I'm not convinced by this complaint. The whole point of free software
> > is that it is possible to carry on without needing the cooperation or
> > involvement of one's upstreams.
> Sure, but in order for that possibility to be real, someone has to
> collapse the waveform and step up to do the work. So far nobody has
> stepped in to fill Thorvald's shoes. I only stepped up to help with
> the packages because I consider him to be a friend (and indeed I also
> advocated him to NM because I consider him a prolific and talented
> programmer - they aren't easy shoes to fill by a part time dabbler).
I have spoken privately to people who are involved in mumble upstream
and they seem to be keen to continue.
> Given how easy this really is to fix without creating that kind of
> exposure, I'm a bit lost for words at the push back it seems to be
> getting from some quarters ...
Your plan for a "fix" is total incompatibility with other deployed