Bug#729203: CTTE and reasonable solutions
On Mon, Feb 03, 2014 at 05:58:48PM -0500, Antoine Beaupré wrote:
> On 2014-02-03 17:25:40, Adrian Bunk wrote:
>...
> >> 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?
You were claiming the original intention of this RFP was to provide the
ffmpeg binary again.
Since the original intention of this RFP that you were referring to
listed chromium, that implies that you were saying that chromium
would use the commandline tools.
>...
> 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",
>...
I would appreciate if you would in the future refrain from wrongly
claiming that I said something, when I did in fact state the opposite:
<-- snip -->
If all you expect to happen after "apt-get install ffmpeg" is that
there is an ffmpeg binary that is using the ffmpeg libraries, then
this might be doable.
<-- snip -->
> 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...
You do know the relevant history?
> 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?
All I am saying is that suggestiong along the lines of having both the
libav and ffmpeg libraries and then switching between them through
"apt-get install" is insane.
If you disagree with the Debian Multimedia Maintainers on which to use
in jessie, the conflict resolution process is in the Debian Constitution.
> 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...
What part of the technical reason "a binary/library compiled against
a library cannot be used with a version of this library with a different
soname" don't you understand?
> 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.
You already agreed that your claim "The library names of ffmpeg and
libav now seem perfectly orthogonal" is not true.
That is a mess, and would have to be sorted out by the Debian libav and
ffmpeg maintainers before such an upload could happen.
> A.
cu
Adrian
--
"Is there not promise of rain?" Ling Tan asked suddenly out
of the darkness. There had been need of rain for many days.
"Only a promise," Lao Er said.
Pearl S. Buck - Dragon Seed
Reply to: