Re: congratulations to our ftp-master team
Yes, ftpmaster is getting efficient at the routine processing. Congrats!
Moritz Muehlenhoff wrote:
> Petter Reinholdtsen wrote:
>> But it is not doing a great job with processing a few old uploads. I
>> consider it a problem that no decision have been taken on the few
>> really old uploads (xvidcap, rte, mplayer).
Indeed, the unfortunate part is the uploads which appear to have been
stalled in limbo.
> One of the FTP masters (I forgot who) once said that the best way to
> help get mplayer into the archive would be to present an overview of
> the patent situation surrounding MPEG and the like. ffmpeg has such
> an overview in README.patents, which might serve as a good basis, as
> the core library code of mplayer, ffmpeg and xvidcap is identical.
> (libavcodec/libavformat)
Hmm, good idea. mplayer has had all of its long-standing copyright
licensing problems dealt with in recent years and debian-legal would be sad
to see that go to waste.
It looks like the packagers of mplayer and xvidcap have not been notified of
the potential problems with their packages, and *that* is disturbing. I'm
sure Javier Fernandez-Sanguino Pen~a would be willing to do whatever's
needed with xvidcap up to and including repackaging the upstream tarball
and removing functionality, and I expect Dariush Pietrzak would do the
same. But they haven't been *asked* to.
In contrast, Christian Marillat has been asked to and didn't, and the
exchange is a matter of record, so the same complaint cannot be made about
the ftpmasters' recent behavior regarding rte.
Communication from the ftp team regarding these packages would be very
helpful, since debian-legal didn't see any copyright problems with them,
and all the possibly-patent-encumbered code is already present in other
packages in the archive, AFAICS.
With regard to rte, the stated problem was the presence of the MPEG encoder
-- could this be the problem with the other two? But exactly the same code
is also present in the ffmpeg package in the archive already (and in fact
any version in Debian would simply use the ffmpeg code from that package
rather than using its own copy). So I'm not really sure what the problem
is. Is there an unfiled serious bug in ffmpeg? Is there a difference
between ffmpeg and the others which I don't know about (perhaps they *are*
using their own copies?) Is the problem purely one of documentation, in
which case the ffmpeg README.patents file would be sufficient to get such
packages in? Do the ftpmasters need help from -legal? Which is it?
Similarly, what's wrong with xmovie (1 month)? More importantly, has David
Martinez Moreno been *told* what's wrong? (Given what I've heard about the
state of the upstream source, I imagine that lots and lots of things could
be wrong, but David should at least be told.)
Likewise for mozilla-firefox-adblock (2 months), new version of tidy (1
month), xplc (1 month), cvsconnect (1 month), cvssuck (1 month), libmpd (1
month); if there's something wrong with each of these packages, the
packager should know by now. Maybe in some cases he does, but in others it
appears clear that the packager doesn't know.
--
ksig --random|
Reply to: