Ron writes ("Re: Bug#682010: [mumble] Communication failures due to CELT codec library removal"): > My primary concern is with the fact we would be shipping very complicated > code, that only about 3 people in the world really understand, and which > has no committed ongoing maintainer from among them or anyone else.
I don't think this is really a huge issue. As I understand it the code in the celt codec has been reused in the implementation of opus - obviously not quite identically, but that means that it's not really right to say that no-one understands this code and that it's dead upstream. It's been incorporated as a key part of opus, renamed and developed. So celt 0.7.11 is really best seen as an old, pre-release, version of opus. > If there is a consensus among the members of the TC and the security > team that the risk of doing that is justified by other factors, then > I'll consider the peer decision making process to have worked as it > should, and quite the opposite of being 'irritated', I'll be quite > relieved that this decision and its possible consequences do not fall > on my head alone. Well I asked this question of the security team, and while they weren't particularly positive about it they did not object to the inclusion in wheezy. > So ... really the only decision I see to be made here, is will we > ship with celt 0.7.1 enabled or not. If -ctte and -security weighs > up the risks and tells me they are happy doing that, then I'm happy > to make that happen with no further delay. I don't speak for the whole TC, but my personal view at the moment is that this tradeoff is worthwhile. Ian. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org