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

Re: congratulations to our ftp-master team

A Mennucc <mennucc1@debian.org> writes:

> BTW: I know that 'mplayer' has always been fishy business in Debian....
> but what did 'xvidcap' ever do wrong? AFAICT the only problem may be
> that 'xvidcap' contains FFMPEG code ; but FFMPEG has been in Debian for
> quite long now, so I do not really understand what is going on here.

People explained a long time ago why this isn't a good argument, and it's
kind of frustrating to have people continually asking for a repeat of it.

The existence of a package in Debian is not proof that the package is okay
to distribute for Debian.  We do actually make mistakes, including
mistakenly allowing packages into Debian that turn out not to have
distributable licenses.  It happens all the time.

Assuming that what you say above is correct and FFMPEG is the only issue
(and I have no reason to doubt you), I agree that xvidcap and ffmpeg
should be treated the same.  However, that is not evidence that xvidcap
should be in Debian -- it's evidence that they should be treated the
same.  Perhaps the correct thing to do is file an RC bug on ffmpeg and get
it removed from the archives.  I don't know.

When one doesn't know, the right thing to do is frequently both not make
the problem worse and not overreact, meaning leaving ffmpeg in the archive
and xvidcap in NEW until the situation is clearly understood and resolved
is quite reasonable.  Of course, we do need to eventually actually get the
situation resolved and come to a conclusion, after which either both
should be in the archive or neither should.  But the current situation of
having one in the archive and one not during a hazy patent/license issue
is *not* evidence of someone doing a bad job.  It is evidence of an
incomplete job, which I think everyone, including the ftp-masters, would
agree with.

Russ Allbery (rra@debian.org)               <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>

Reply to: