On 2014-02-03 17:25:40, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> Before what you quote he said in the same email:
> Agree with many on at least providing the *option* for users to have
> the original ffmpeg instead of libav
>
> There is no libav program, and he is clearly talking about the libraries.
I assumed libav included programs, and that is also what the wikipedia
article says. But maybe lorenzo can tell better what he meant than us.
I certainly mean that we could provide the program.
>> > That would be technically insane, and politically impossible unless
>> > CTTE (or a GR) would override the likely veto from the Debian multimedia
>> > maintainers for doing that in any of the packages they maintain.
>>
>> Then maybe this RFP can focus on providing the ffmpeg binary again and
>> not necessarily get into replacing libav altogether, which I think was
>> the original intention here, hence my original email. :)
>
> No.
>
> Rogério is listing in the initial email in this RFP many reasons for the
> ffmpeg libraries. But he never mentions anything related to the ffmpeg
> commandline programs.
He did mention he wanted to package ffmpeg as a replacement of libav, I
stand corrected.
> Or are you seriously saying chromium would use the ffmpeg
> commandline programs?
Now where did I ever mention chrome?
> The ffmpeg/libav commandline programs are relatively rarely used - what
> is used heavily on Linux are the libraries.
I guess my use case is different then. Certainly there's a use case for
the ffmpeg program just working properly in the first place.
Taking a step back, there seems to be a lot of frustrations flying
around that issue, maybe it would be better to keep an open mind and try
to fix issues here.
One of the proposals on the table is to bring back ffmpeg, at least as a
program, possibly as a library. You seem to be saying that is "insane",
but I fail to see the technical reasons behind that argument, other than
debian-multimedia "vetoing" it. Maybe that discussion should be taken
there then? I see there was one email about ffmpeg on the mailing list
about a month ago, without any response, but that's all...
What's your proposal to fix the problems with libav mentionned in this
thread? What's your response to the claims that ffmpeg is a superset of
libav and that libav is lagging in development? If ffmpeg is technically
superior and compatible with libav, why shouldn't we package it?
I feel there's a knee-jerk reaction against the inclusion of ffmpeg
here, and I don't understand the technical reasons for that. Certainly
we could offer ffmpeg as a replacement (Conflicts: Replaces:) of libav
and people could choose between the two, especially if libav is such a
drop-in replacement for packages that depend on ffmpeg...
I think any Debian Developper is perfectly entitled to work on a ffmpeg
package, upload it to new and let the FTP masters decide what to do with
it. Now of course to make other packages use its libraries is a matter
that should be left to those other package's maintainers, that's a
different story, and not the topic of this RFP, from what I understand.
A.
--
To be naive and easily deceived is impermissible, today more than
ever, when the prevailing untruths may lead to a catastrophe because
they blind people to real dangers and real possibilities.
- Erich Fromm
Attachment:
pgpuKtqTHcwr8.pgp
Description: PGP signature