Re: congratulations to our ftp-master team
Russ Allbery wrote:
>Assuming that what you say above is correct and FFMPEG is the only issue
>(and I have no reason to doubt you),
And if it's not, it would be really nice if the ftpmasters let someone know.
> 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
Certainly. Well put.
Of course, leaving the job incomplete for this long without any visible
signs of progress may be evidence of a job not done.
But what *is* evidence of a bad job is that there is one obvious
improvement on the current situation which could have been made at any
time without making matters any worse. Specifically, xvidcap can be
packaged without the ffmpeg code, and if the ftpmasters requested that,
I am sure that Javier would be happy to do that as an interim measure
until this is sorted out. If the ffmpeg code is the only issue, then
it should *not* be delaying xvidcap. If it isn't, then Javier should
Nathanael Nerode <firstname.lastname@example.org>
"(Instead, we front-load the flamewars and grudges in
the interest of efficiency.)" --Steve Lanagasek,