On Tue, 2022-07-26 at 00:29 -0400, Andres Salomon wrote: > Yeah, I was just noticing that. I'll wait a few more months to see if > youtube-dl does an actual release, but long-term it might make sense > to > turn youtube-dl into an empty package that depends on yt-dlp.
This could make sense even if the former would make a new release. I mean in Debian we have current Python versions, and as long as yt-dlp is feature-wise far more active than youtube-dl, that should be enough for Debian users. > Since they have different command-line arguments and people might be > using youtube-dl in scripts, I do wonder if youtube-dl should remain > in > bookworm with a NEWS.Debian warning users to switch to yt-dlp, and > have > it become a dummy package in bookworm+1? Or just add a release notes entry that youtube-dl has been replaced by the other, with noting the similar CLI and refering to the yt-dlp manpage for the exact differences. On Tue, 2022-07-26 at 07:08 +0200, Andreas Tille wrote: > I would be really happyif you would consider team > maintaining youtube-dl and yt-dl since I'm really not the best person > to > maintain this package. I'm fine with sponsoring any of your work if > you do > not have upload permissions. At least for yt-dlp, Unit 193 already does quite some awesome job of Debian maintenance... so I guess there's not much needed for that right now? Thanks, Chris.
