On 16/01/13 21:09, Alexis Ballier wrote: > More seriously: Why ? Who decided this ?
I never pushed my weight over it before since as you are involved in FFmpeg directly, I am involved in Libav directly. Thus anything I say on this topic has a clear bias. Same goes for you. Tomas is not related to libav beside one of his core project using it by transition, so I would expect him to be less biased than us. > Let's be realistic, both upstreams claim they're better than the other > in one way or another, and let's think like serious downstreams, not > like upstream playground. VLC uses it since ffmpeg doesn't work with rtmp properly last time they checked and other interesting situations. gst-ffmpeg/gst-libav works only with libav as per upstream desire (thus the rename) ubuntu and debian just use Libav. > As a downstream, I can see plenty of reasons against, but none in favor > of this change: > - There are still a couple of non-trivial packages that need to be > fixed to work with libav while I don't know any that works with libav > but not ffmpeg. See above for the other way round. > - All (but the one discovered in Nov. 2012) of the security issues > fixed by libav 0.8.5, released on Jan. 13 2013 were fixed in May 2012 > (!!) for ffmpeg according to the website... 8 months before... The security game is fun. Given the number of "additional features" the surface impact is bigger in FFmpeg and currently all but one of the bugs claimed as security issues originate from the same guy he claim to fix them (sometimes the fix doesn't address the underlying issue but just _that_ specific sample). I'd rather avoid having another mud sliding contest. I stopped caring about FFmpeg since somebody gave a sample of his humor wishing my death. Lu
