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

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.


Reply to: