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

Bug#674634: transition: celt

On Mon, May 28, 2012 at 11:54:14AM +0200, Philipp Schafft wrote:
> reflum,
> On Sat, 2012-05-26 at 18:38 +0930, Ron wrote:
> > Roar, I've been assured by its upstream is likewise easy to just disable
> > support for it - but the-me is giving me some pointless pushback ...
> > I'll NMU that too when the time comes if really needed if this is the
> > final blocker.
> > 
> > There shouldn't be any other flow on from this so far as I know.
> > Some of these packages may enable Opus support instead, but doing so
> > is not a prerequisite for us being able to remove celt for Wheezy.
> Removal of CELT will remove a major feature of src:roaraudio. It will
> not render the package useless just will make it useless for a group of
> users.

For anyone actually relying on CELT for this (of which I highly suspect
there is very near to nobody), the current situation is already worse
than useless.  The version we have is not bitstream compatible with the
version of celt that other distros are shipping, so the result of trying
to use it will be something approximating speaker and ear popping noise.

This also would have happened to them if I'd actually uploaded a newer
version of CELT as several people had requested ...

If nobody has reported that to you, then it confirms my suspicion that
nobody will actually notice it going away.

Since you don't even mention celt support in any of your descriptions
of roar, either in the package or on your website, this seems more like
a minor easter egg than a "major feature" anyway.

> This is why we like to make this a smooth transition with getting
> in Opus first, then removing CELT. Also note that this transition needs
> users using it to change config so it should not be a single upload
> removing one and adding the other.

If you can't sanely handle this in one upload, then your package is
broken for your users anyway.  There is no arbitrary period of time
on the order of "1 month" as you claimed earlier in which they will
all update to the first version before you upload the second.

> The cirtical factor is time here. Ron Lee is a bit late with this
> transition in the release cycle. Had he given us about a month more we
> would have done all this already and everybody would be happy.

Let's be very clear on this point.  You have been asking me about this
for over a year now, and have been fully informed on everything that
was planned.  So if anyone is "a bit late" getting their act together,
you'll need to discuss that with the man you see in the mirror.

Yes, this is late in the cycle - but only from the perspective of the
release team.  Everyone else, including you, has known this was coming,
and that things would happen fast after the IETF working group finally
concluded, as uncertain as the actual date for that had been.  And
everyone else, except you, has been extremely cooperative and has got
their part of the work done already, efficiently and painlessly.

A few days ago, you claimed this would take 4 months.  Today you claim
a month.  Without getting gnuplot out to fit this, on that projection
we should be down to my 15 minute estimate, by say, this Wednesday?

I already sent you the one line patch that was needed.  And I still have
the 12 minutes up my sleeve from doing that if you'd like me to upload it.

Just say "Ok".  and it will happen.  It doesn't get much easier than that.

> I have discusses several possibile ways to get this solved with the-me
> (the maintainer). In fact both of us would *really* like to get this
> done. CELT always added some extra work both upstream and in maintaining
> packages because of the unfrozen bitstream.

You keep saying that, and then keep denying any action that would actually
really do it.  The last time I asked you, you even denied being one of the
maintainers and having any say in what happens with this at all ...

What exactly is the "several possible ways" you have in mind?

<hint> Embedding celt in roar is not one of them </>


Reply to: