Bug#682010: [mumble] Communication failures due to CELT codec library removal
Ron writes ("Re: Bug#682010: [mumble] Communication failures due to CELT codec library removal"):
> My primary concern is with the fact we would be shipping very complicated
> code, that only about 3 people in the world really understand, and which
> has no committed ongoing maintainer from among them or anyone else.
I don't think this is really a huge issue. As I understand it the
code in the celt codec has been reused in the implementation of opus -
obviously not quite identically, but that means that it's not really
right to say that no-one understands this code and that it's dead
upstream. It's been incorporated as a key part of opus, renamed and
developed. So celt 0.7.11 is really best seen as an old, pre-release,
version of opus.
> If there is a consensus among the members of the TC and the security
> team that the risk of doing that is justified by other factors, then
> I'll consider the peer decision making process to have worked as it
> should, and quite the opposite of being 'irritated', I'll be quite
> relieved that this decision and its possible consequences do not fall
> on my head alone.
Well I asked this question of the security team, and while they
weren't particularly positive about it they did not object to the
inclusion in wheezy.
> So ... really the only decision I see to be made here, is will we
> ship with celt 0.7.1 enabled or not. If -ctte and -security weighs
> up the risks and tells me they are happy doing that, then I'm happy
> to make that happen with no further delay.
I don't speak for the whole TC, but my personal view at the moment is
that this tradeoff is worthwhile.