Re: new mplayer 1.0pre7try2 package
>> Contrast rte, where the ftpmasters told Marillat exactly what he needed to
>> remove to get the package in Debian, and he didn't do it, and declared that
>> he would keep uploading it. Leaving *that* in limbo is totally reasonable.
Christian Marillat wrote:
>I've *never* received any e-mail saying that.
Perhaps I have misinterpreted the following message from the bug
trail to bug 112699:
>From: Joerg Jaspert <firstname.lastname@example.org>
>To: Christian Marillat <email@example.com>
>Cc: Joerg Jaspert <firstname.lastname@example.org>, email@example.com
>Subject: Re: rte_0.4-0.0_i386.changes REJECTED
>Date: Sat, 19 Mar 2005 14:32:55 +0100
>On 10233 March 1977, Christian Marillat wrote:
>>> Yes, this is the reject of the rte package which was in NEW until now.
>>> - It is an encoding thing, which encodes to formats which are patented, and
>>> the patent holder are actually enforcing their patents. Found some
>>> hits for this with a little question to google.
>> Are you serious ? We have ffmpeg (and soon mencoder in the mplayer
>> package)in Debian who does exactly what rte does and rte can't enter
>> Debian ? ffmpeg should be removed then.
>Yes, ffmpeg encoding stuff shouldnt be there, and no, mplayer wont get
>in with mencoder included. I already talked with upstream about it, he
>will talk with Debian maintainer to exclude this thing, before we take a
>closer look at it.
>>> If this reasons are no longer true in the future feel free to
>>> re-upload it, but for now it is out.
>> Done. I've uploaded 0.5.6-1
>As written above: ENCODING is still an issue and therefore at least one
>reason is still true. So dont hope too much it will get through.
>Die dümmsten Hähne haben die dicksten Eier.
I read this as "remove MPEG encoding and it will go in." Don't you?
Nathanael Nerode <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Read it and weep.