On Thursday, July 19, 2012 14:23:31, Ron wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 19, 2012 at 12:55:59PM +0100, Ian Jackson wrote:
> > Ron writes ("Re: #682010 re celt and mumble referred to the TC"):
[…]
> > > Mumble already ships this as an embedded private library on every
> > > system other than direct Debian derivatives.
> >
> > I'm not sure exactly what you mean. Do you mean they support some
> > other version of the celt codec ? Or are you just talking about how
> > they manage the packaging ?
>
> I mean mumble embeds something like seven mutually incompatible versions
> of celt, all of which it provides as private implementation libraries
> on every platform except Debian - because nobody else provides the version
> that we do. And we only provide that version because upstream tagged the
> current head on a random day when Thorvald and I said, "if we're going to
> do this, we need it today".
>
> The idea was, he was going to try to get everyone else to use it too.
> But that failed completely, so all we have now is this random Debian-
> specific snapshot, that nothing and nobody else uses or interoperates
> with, and which mumble has to embed anyway for every other user.
When I test the version in Wheezy that uses celt I'm able to interoperate with
any public server, whether it be a Debian platform, Gentoo, Fedora, Windows,
FreeBSD, but I often cannot with the version in Sid. :-/
> It really is time to just admit that was a mistake, and correct it.
However as I said I also don't disagree with this.
An alternative I've been thinking about would be an additional text file in
the Mumble package (FAQ.txt, PROBLEMS.txt -- whatever filename seems logical)
which could contain information concerning removal of the CELT codec and the
reasons why -- dead upstream, security concerns, etc. Enough information
(such as that you've already provided) that's easy enough to find so that
there's at least a chance for users to find it, or something to point them to
if they open a bug report ... and then we suffer for a bit until Opus support
gets more widespread.
What I'm really looking to try avoid are repeat events of someone installing
Mumble, finding or opening a bug report, and receiving back [this is not an
accusation] "this isn't a bug <closed>" because the users lack the
information, and it being too exasperating for any maintainer to give the long
explanation repeatedly.
This is why I've been asking whether an entry in NEWS.Debian makes sense. Or
perhaps both makes sense: a NEWS.Debian entry for "please read FAQ.txt in
/usr/share/docs/mumble relating to why some audio connections fail currently"
or something to that effect.
Not optimal of course, but no solution to bug ever will be.
-- Chris
--
Chris Knadle
Chris.Knadle@coredump.us
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.