On 2022-02-17 19:13:08 +0100, Reimar Döffinger wrote: > > > On 16 Feb 2022, at 23:25, Sebastian Ramacher <sramacher@debian.org> wrote: > > > > Let's stop pretending that mplayer is maintained. > > What is your criteria for "maintained"? In Debian or upstream? Upstream issues are still addressed from time to time, there are still several people around that can address issues, in particular security issues. It's definitely not maintained in Debian. Looking at the recent history of mplayer uploads, I did most of them without any bug triaging. So that's not what I would consider mplaer being maintained. If you want to pick up maintenance of mplayer in Debian, please feel free do that. > > The upstream mailing > > list infrastructure is gone > > I have absolutely no idea why you claim that. > It's there and working. Yesterday evening lists.mplayerhq.hu failed to resolve. Otherwise I would have forwarded the build failure with ffmpeg 5.0. In the end, this will need to be fixed for bookworm. Cheers > > > and development has been minimal over the > > last couple of months and years. > > It's mostly in maintenance mode I guess. > There might be Debian users who don't mind their software changing radically as long as it keeps doing what they've used it for the previous years... > > > So I think we should not include > > mplayer in bookworm. mpv is a worthy replacement for mplayer. > > Possibly, though it's not a drop-in replacement (different command-line) and supposedly it aims more at modern computers, so might not be so great a replacement for legacy hardware. > > Best regards, > Reimar Döffinger -- Sebastian Ramacher
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature