On 2014-02-03 18:21:34, Adrian Bunk wrote: > On Mon, Feb 03, 2014 at 05:58:48PM -0500, Antoine Beaupré wrote: >> On 2014-02-03 17:25:40, Adrian Bunk wrote: >>... > 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. I obviously wasn't saying that. I also stated above "I stand corrected", what else do you need 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", >>... > > 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 --> I am refering to your position which you restate below.... >> 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? I am familiar with the fork, yes. However, things change and it seems that ffmpeg has picked up a lot of speed since the fork. Maybe it's time to reopen that discussion? Or maybe not, considering how this is going so far... >> 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. I do not see any answer to the technical questions I have asked above. I also do not see why this proposal is inherently "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 am aware of the constitution as well, thanks. I wasn't aware I was in a conflict resolution process already, I was trying to get information about the situation. Things escalate quick around here don't they? :) >> 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? Well, that's one answer, thanks. I was under the understanding that ffmpeg was trying to keep backwards compatibility with libav, I guess that is all much clearer now. One thing I don't understand is how difficult this conversation feels for me right now. Maybe it's just me, but I was just looking at an offer to work on ffmpeg in Debian by a volunteer, and this is turning out to be a difficult conversation, what happened? >> 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. I fail to understand what that statement brings to the conversation. Does that make me a bad person? :P > That is a mess, and would have to be sorted out by the Debian libav and > ffmpeg maintainers before such an upload could happen. That would be great! I support such an initiative. I'm glad we agree. A. -- Antoine Beaupré +++ Réseau Koumbit Networks +++ +1.514.387.6262 #208 --------------------------------------------------------------------
Attachment:
pgpcfdiBhLUXI.pgp
Description: PGP signature