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

Re: Bug#682010: #682010 re celt and mumble referred to the TC

On Thu, Jul 19, 2012 at 07:39:37PM +0100, Ian Jackson wrote:
> 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.

mumble hasn't been updated in Ubuntu in its last 4 releases.
Are you saying the list of bugs in launchpad that are fixed in Debian
are not real?  And that it isn't actually unmaintained there?

> > 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.

Firefox has it enabled in their beta, which will ship as stable in
something like 6 weeks time.  How much more widely deployed than 30%
of the world did you have in mind?

All the name brand distros are already shipping it.

The "plug" was pulled on celt a long time ago.

> > > 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.

I have spoken to them publicly.  All of them refused to take any
responsibility for actually maintaining celt beyond "we'll apply
a patch if you give us one".  If they had committed to that we
wouldn't be having this discussion.

But yes, other than that they were quite keen for us to just close
our eyes and keep shipping it until news of the disaster hit /.

They also recommended we just ignore the zeroc-ice ABI breakage and
pretend it didn't happen too.

Oh, and they also removed support for speex in the last couple of
weeks, which otherwise was a baseline for interop that is still

Is this the kind of technical excellence you want to overrule a
maintainer to achieve?

> > 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
> installations.

And your alternate plan is "make everyone insecure" rather than propagating
a security fix release?

How long do you really think it will take for that to be rolled out?

Alternatively, you could send me a patch to restore speex support.
I'll gladly apply that if incompatibility is your actual concern.


Reply to: