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
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.