On Wed, Apr 29, 2015 at 03:28:40PM +0200, Andreas Cadhalpun wrote: > Hi Alessandro, > > On 29.04.2015 14:58, Alessandro Ghedini wrote: > > On mer, apr 29, 2015 at 02:29:43 +0200, Bálint Réczey wrote: > >>> Since there are concerns on shipping both libav and ffmpeg, we won't allow > >>> ffmpeg unless it is chosen to be the default and there is a clear transition > >>> plan, so that we can switch from one to the other. Only then will the block hint > >>> be removed. > >> There are no technical reasons for not having both in testing an I see > >> this the only fair solution. There are no name- nor symbol collision > >> between the packages. They co-exist perfectly on my systems, too. > > > > There is at least one reason that I can think of. Assuming the decision to keep > > either libav or ffmpeg (not both) stands, > > Great to hear that this is only an assumption and no definitive statement! > > > if ffmpeg is allowed to migrate and > > other packages start depending on it, > > Packages already depend on FFmpeg, simply because they don't work with Libav: Yes, but they won't migrate to testing either. > > and if before the stretch release ffmpeg > > is deemed not release ready (e.g. if libav is chosen), then more work will be > > required to untangle the dependencies and have ffmpeg removed from testing. > > If a preliminary decision is made in e.g. one years time, maintainers would have > plenty of time to adapt. The decision has to be taken *now*, not in one year. Last year, just before the freeze, we (the multimedia team) sort of held a vote to decide this, but it went in favour of libav. IIRC the reason people voted in favour of libav was that we were too close to the freeze to do anything. Now would be the time to start that discussion again. So, instead of wasting energies arguing against the migration block, I suggest you be the one to restart that discussion, given that you are the maintainer of ffmpeg. Cheers
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature