On Monday, July 23, 2012 13:09:05, Ian Jackson wrote:
> Chris Knadle writes ("Re: Bug#682010: [mumble] Communication failures due to
CELT codec library removal"):
> > On Monday, July 23, 2012 10:34:28, Ian Jackson wrote:
> > > Philipp Kern writes ("Re: Bug#682010: [mumble] Communication failures
> > > due to
> >
> > CELT codec library removal"):
> > > > On Sun, Jul 22, 2012 at 06:31:27PM -0400, Chris Knadle wrote:
> > > > > 1) Fix up "348" from Wheezy so it compiles and uses the CELT
> > > > >
> > > > > codec library [very undesirable]
> > > > >
> > > > > 2) Same as 1) but with embedded CELT (would need testing)
> > > > > 3) drop mumble from Wheezy
> > >
> > > Of these 2. would seem to be the best option.
> >
> > I agree.
> >
> > Pros:
> > - Solution should work for both Wheezy and Sid
> >
> > (-2 in Sid currently has no celt support, and celt is the most widely
> >
> > used codec in mumble on the 'net)
> >
> > - Would use celt 0.7 as well as 0.11
>
> I'm not sure I follow this. Are you saying that enabling the embedded
> celt would necessarily involve enabling /two/ versions of celt ?
Yes AFAIK.
> (And you mention `0.7' and `0.11' neither of which are the same as `0.7.1'
> so I'm confused about that too.)
The mumble source package seems to contain celt 0.11.0 and 0.7.0. The celt
library contains celt 0.7.1.
> Surely we want to avoid having multiple different versions if at all
> possible. Is it essential to support anything other than 0.7.1 ?
AFAIK, no.
> I thought upstream had declared 0.7.1 to be a baseline so that would
> be sufficient.
That was my understanding too, but upstream seem to be using 0.7.0 from what I
can tell. [As such I'm likewise asking the same questions you are.]
> And if 0.7.1 is sufficient, can it be done using an embedded copy
> right now with a build system change, or would we have to dump a
> special copy of celt 0.7.1 into the mumble source package ?
I'm working on the assumption that celt 0.7.0 in the source package can be
embedded using a build system change.
> > Cons:
> > - Larger diff in mumble
>
> Is it in fact a substantial diff ? I thought it was essentially a
> configure option.
Source-wise it's likewise my assumption also, but I was also considering the
"binary diff", if you will.
> > - Would greatly irritate mumble maintainer
>
> Rather than consider someone's emotional state, I'd rather focus on
> their views. That is, if this is a bad idea according to the mumble
> maintainers then I'd like to hear why they think so.
Likewise -- I'm just trying to take the maintainer's wishes into account.
> > > Personally I don't think there is much to prefer between 1 and 2. Is
> > > all that's stopping us from fixing this is overcoming our resistance
> > > to an embedded library copy ? If so I think we should just go ahead.
> >
> > Pros:
> > - Smaller diff in mumble
> >
> > Cons:
> > - Only uses celt 0.7
>
> See above.
Celt 0.7.1 in the celt library.
-- Chris
--
Chris Knadle
Chris.Knadle@coredump.us
GPG Key: 4096R/0x1E759A726A9FDD74
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.