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

Re: mumble and celt, #682010, TC

Thorvald Natvig writes ("Re: mumble and celt, #682010, TC"):
> Judging from what little I can find of discussions and changelogs, I do
> find it likely Ron will object to being forced to re-enable CELT when he
> strongly believes it should be disabled. At that point, this boils down
> more to a resource question than a "who is right" question; I have
> severely limited spare time for new next few months, and if Patrick has
> already withdrawn from this package, the only remaining short-term
> maintainer is Ron, meaning his decision will stand as he is the one
> actually doing things.

I think this version of mumble is not fit for release, and I think the
RMs agree.

> Maybe the right solution is to apply some upstream pressure in Mumble
> (as in, on me) to finish the Opus support on other platforms and make a
> new major release. This would help transition the majority of our
> userbase to a Opus compatible version, at which point this entire
> problem goes away.

We are not going to take a new upstream release for wheezy.
Furthermore this is going about the problem backwards.

Would you be willing to be responsible for the celt support in mumble
for the life of wheezy ?

> > Am I right in thinking that enabling the builtin 0.7.1 alongside the
> > other builtin versions of celt only makes the security situation worse
> > by bugs that are in 0.7.1 but in none of the other embedded version of
> > celt which are currently enabled ?  (Which are those?)
> On Debian, we've never enabled any of the embedded versions, they're
> only built if your system does not have CELT 0.7.1 installed. The only
> one we would need is 0.7.1, as that is the fallback format we support on
> all platforms.



Reply to: