Bug#729203: CTTE and reasonable solutions
On Thu, Feb 13, 2014 at 01:15:34PM +, Jonathan Dowland wrote: ... So, I fully support packaging ffmpeg as a binary package for the command line client at the very least, and perhaps as a necessary first step. ... I suspect that the animosity I've read in this thread from people towards ffmpeg in the archive as libraries is due to concerns about how practical it would be for them to co-exist. These are probably valid concerns that should be looked at. However, they can be, by exploring real packaging attempts outside the archive (or using experimental) rather than arguing about theoretics. ... How do you plan to address the DSA veto against having both sources in the archive? https://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2014/02/msg00668.html 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 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Bug#729203: ~ Re: Bug#729203: CTTE and reasonable solutions
On Sun, Feb 16, 2014 at 02:25:18PM +0200, Adrian Bunk wrote: How do you plan to address the DSA veto against having both sources in the archive? https://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2014/02/msg00668.html I did not intepret that message as a DSA veto. But, with regards making sure the DSA are happy with whatever we do, we'll do that by talking to DSA - which, last I checked - was not you. You clearly have nothing constructive to offer with regards getting ffmpeg back into Debian and satisfying the users who are craving it. Can I suggest you therefore focus your efforts on something else, preferably something constructive, and leave this bug alone? -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Bug#729203: ~ Re: Bug#729203: CTTE and reasonable solutions
On Sun, Feb 16, 2014 at 12:30:26PM +, Jonathan Dowland wrote: On Sun, Feb 16, 2014 at 02:25:18PM +0200, Adrian Bunk wrote: How do you plan to address the DSA veto against having both sources in the archive? https://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2014/02/msg00668.html I did not intepret that message as a DSA veto. this simply isn't managable at all But, with regards making sure the DSA are happy with whatever we do, we'll do that by talking to DSA - which, last I checked - was not you. As long as you do that before you start spending time on it that's a reasonable approach. You clearly have nothing constructive to offer with regards getting ffmpeg back into Debian and satisfying the users who are craving it. Can I suggest you therefore focus your efforts on something else, preferably something constructive, and leave this bug alone? My constructive contribution is to show a way forward that has at least a chance.[1] And to point out the issues you will face with your approach. You are not doing any users a favour by choosing an approach that cannot over an approach that might work. If you want me to shut up, get DSA approval and then prove me wrong by showing that what I called insane is actually doable. cu Adrian [1] assuming FFmpeg is actually better than libav - I don't know much about the arguments the libav side might bring -- 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 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Bug#729203: CTTE and reasonable solutions
Hi Rogério, thanks for looking into resolving this situation. I haven't read every last mail in the history of this issue and recently have confined myself to just this bug. There's obviously a detailed history and a lot of animosity. I'd say first and foremost, I miss ffmpeg most as a command-line tool. The tools that link to libav (VLC etc.) seem to continue to work fine from a user's perspective. I appreciate that there might be a lot of pain for maintainers below the water line (more on that later). Reading some of the comments on this bug, I think many users are similarly missing ffmpeg as a command line tool and are not as concerned about the library side of things. So, I fully support packaging ffmpeg as a binary package for the command line client at the very least, and perhaps as a necessary first step. If the debian multimedia team are not interested in doing that, fine, they don't have to. But it would be wrong for them IMHO to prevent some other interested party from doing so. Back to maintainers linking against libav. You have said yourself that the effort involved to get e.g. handbrake to work with Debian's libav was herculean (not your exact words I know). I believe that, if ffmpeg libraries and libav libraries can co-exist in the archive, it should be a maintainer's choice which they link against. So, if it were possible for ffmpeg's libraries to be packaged without interfering with existing clients of libav's libraries, a maintainer such as yourself for handbrake[1] could choose to use ffmpeg, that would be the maintainer's right. I suspect that the animosity I've read in this thread from people towards ffmpeg in the archive as libraries is due to concerns about how practical it would be for them to co-exist. These are probably valid concerns that should be looked at. However, they can be, by exploring real packaging attempts outside the archive (or using experimental) rather than arguing about theoretics. So as a first step and addressing many of the requests here I think we should push on to get the binary packaged on it's own, for now. A good starting place would be a git repository for the packaging. Should we base this on the pre-libav ffmpeg package, or start afresh? [1] perhaps a bad example since it's yourself with the debian multimedia team... -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Bug#729203: CTTE and reasonable solutions
On 03/02/2014 23:25, Adrian Bunk wrote: On Mon, Feb 03, 2014 at 04:32:49PM -0500, Antoine Beaupré wrote: On 2014-02-03 16:22:38, Adrian Bunk wrote: ... But if someone wants, as Lorenzo suggested, an apt-get install ffmpeg to magically switch all applications like VLC from using libav to ffmpeg, then one of the requirements for that would clearly be that there would have to be two versions of all binaries and libraries using libav/ffmpeg in the archive - one compiled with libav, and one compiled with ffmpeg. I reread Lorenzo's email, and it doesn't actually say switch all applications like VLC from libav to ffmpeg. He just said: users should be able to do apt-get install ffmpeg or apr-get install libav I think some people here are talking about using ffmpeg as a commandline-based conversion tool, not necessarily the way you are bringing up, as a library that (say) vlc is linking against. That's what I meant in my message. I'm referrig to ffmpeg vs. avconv - I should probably have written: apt-get install libav-tools to make it more clear. Before what you quote he said in the same email: Agree with many on at least providing the *option* for users to have the original ffmpeg instead of libav There is no libav program, and he is clearly talking about the libraries. Actually I meant the binary. I guess lots of the confusion (at least from a users' point of view) comes from the fact that the description of the ffmpeg package states: Libav is a complete, cross-platform solution to decode, encode, record, convert and stream audio and video. This package contains the deprecated ffmpeg program. This package also serves as a transitional package to libav-tools. Users are advised to use avconv from the libav-tools package instead of ffmpeg. Homepage: http://libav.org/ Without getting into the politics of it... I think this is at least confusing for many user. [...] The ffmpeg/libav commandline programs are relatively rarely used - what is used heavily on Linux are the libraries. Do you have any data to support such claim? I personally use ffmpeg commandline tool quite a lot. Clearly being one person I'm not a representative sample but would be interesting to know if some sort of survey/statistics could be produced. Ciao Lorenzo -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Bug#729203: CTTE and reasonable solutions
On Tue, Feb 04, 2014 at 10:59:50AM +0100, Lorenzo Sutton wrote: On 03/02/2014 23:25, Adrian Bunk wrote: ... I guess lots of the confusion (at least from a users' point of view) comes from the fact that the description of the ffmpeg package states: Libav is a complete, cross-platform solution to decode, encode, record, convert and stream audio and video. This package contains the deprecated ffmpeg program. This package also serves as a transitional package to libav-tools. Users are advised to use avconv from the libav-tools package instead of ffmpeg. Homepage: http://libav.org/ Without getting into the politics of it... I think this is at least confusing for many user. ... That was fixed last year September when the ffmpeg packages was removed from unstable. Ciao Lorenzo 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 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Bug#729203: Fwd: Re: Bug#729203: CTTE and reasonable solutions
On Mon, Feb 03, 2014 at 04:15:07PM -0800, Timothy Gu wrote: ... On Feb 3, 2014 3:39 PM, Jan Larres j...@majutsushi.net wrote: On 04/02/14 12:08, Antoine Beaupré wrote: If both packages are ABI-compatible, then ffmpeg can be designed as a drop-in replacement for libav and users will be free to choose. As far as I understand it the problem is that it is *not* a drop-in replacement as far as the libraries are concerned, every package needs to be recompiled depending on which library should be used. So you would need two different packages for every program that uses the libraries if you wanted to offer both in parallel. And I don't think Adrian (or anyone else) is against ffmpeg as such, it's just that there should be made a decision which one to use in order to avoid these issues. It's not as bad as you think. FFmpeg has a --enable-libav-incompatible-abi configure option. Didn't test the effectiveness of it though. This makes some functions that have different signatures in libav and ffmpeg API-compatible with libav by switching them to the libav one. It does not change the sonames of the ffmpeg libraries. 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 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Bug#729203: CTTE and reasonable solutions
On Mon, Feb 03, 2014 at 07:13:57PM -0500, Antoine Beaupré wrote: On 2014-02-03 18:21:34, Adrian Bunk wrote: On Mon, Feb 03, 2014 at 05:58:48PM -0500, Antoine Beaupré wrote: ... 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 No. What you were claiming was that I would have called it insane bringing back ffmpeg *at least as a program*. This claim is false. The value of having only the ffmpeg programs without the libraries would be very limited. And it is clear that any statement ffmpeg is back in Debian would be considered a bad joke by most people interested in libav and/or ffmpeg if it would turn out that only the programs would be in Debian and not the libraries. But contrary to what you were claiming, the word I used was not insane, I said it would be doable. Insane would be attempting to have both the libav and the ffmpeg libraries in Debian in parallel. ... 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. ... There is no point in a technical discussion between you and me whether libav or ffmpeg is better - even if I'd agree that wouldn't change anything. If you think ffmpeg is superior to libav and should therefore be shipped in jessie instead of libav, you have to discuss that with the Debian multimedia maintainers. And if you don't come to an agreement with them, the Debian Constitution describes in detail your options for having their decision overridden. The only thing I am saying is that having both libraries in the archive would not be a reasonable option for the reasons I've already explained. 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 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Bug#729203: Fwd: Re: Bug#729203: CTTE and reasonable solutions
On Feb 3, 2014 3:24 PM, Adrian Bunk b...@stusta.de wrote: That is a mess, and would have to be sorted out by the Debian libav and ffmpeg maintainers before such an upload could happen. Agreed. But not exactly sure whether pkg-multimedia would want to collaborate... Considering the history of the libav/ffmpeg split it is very unlikely that they would. No matter what you do, for bringing the ffmpeg libraries back into Debian you will likely at some point need to have the opinion of pkg-multimedia overridden by either the TC or a GR. Timothy 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 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Bug#729203: CTTE and reasonable solutions
On Fri, 10 Jan 2014 18:52:06 +0200, Adrian Bunk wrote: On Fri, Jan 10, 2014 at 08:17:45AM +0100, Lorenzo Sutton wrote: Agree with many on at least providing the *option* for users to have the original ffmpeg instead of libav and using sensible clear names and descriptions for both packages. ... Without getting into the politics of the fork etc. users should be able to do apt-get install ffmpeg or apr-get install libav ... It is a misconception that making this optional would be a reasonable solution - in reality the hassle that would create would is so huge that no sane person would want to implement the packaging for something like that. Doing that for local use might not be too hard, but doing it 100% correct for a Debian release is simply not feasible. Can you clarify why this is not possible? The library names of ffmpeg and libav now seem perfectly orthogonal and it seems to me it should be possible to ship Jessie with both libav and ffmpeg if someone would be willing to package the latter. It turns out that this is exactly what this bug report is about: we have one brave soul that is volunteering for that effort. He has also clearly stated why libav doesn't respond to his requirements. If you have objections against ffmpeg being packaged in Debian, I suggest you clarify those instead of requiring Rogério to address the CTTE right away, which seems to me a little abusive. Rogério, I would suggest you go ahead with the packaging and an upload, don't let the flames fan your enthousiasm. A. -- Non qui parum habet, sed qui plus cupit, pauper est. It is not the man who has too little, but the man who craves more, that is poor.- Lucius Annaeus Seneca (65 AD) signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Bug#729203: CTTE and reasonable solutions
On Mon, Feb 03, 2014 at 10:33:17AM -0500, anarcat wrote: On Fri, 10 Jan 2014 18:52:06 +0200, Adrian Bunk wrote: On Fri, Jan 10, 2014 at 08:17:45AM +0100, Lorenzo Sutton wrote: Agree with many on at least providing the *option* for users to have the original ffmpeg instead of libav and using sensible clear names and descriptions for both packages. ... Without getting into the politics of the fork etc. users should be able to do apt-get install ffmpeg or apr-get install libav ... It is a misconception that making this optional would be a reasonable solution - in reality the hassle that would create would is so huge that no sane person would want to implement the packaging for something like that. Doing that for local use might not be too hard, but doing it 100% correct for a Debian release is simply not feasible. Can you clarify why this is not possible? The library names of ffmpeg and libav now seem perfectly orthogonal and it seems to me it should be possible to ship Jessie with both libav and ffmpeg if someone would be willing to package the latter. It turns out that this is exactly what this bug report is about: we have one brave soul that is volunteering for that effort. He has also clearly stated why libav doesn't respond to his requirements. If you have objections against ffmpeg being packaged in Debian, I suggest you clarify those instead of requiring Rogério to address the CTTE right away, which seems to me a little abusive. Rogério, I would suggest you go ahead with the packaging and an upload, don't let the flames fan your enthousiasm. Can you clarify whether you are sincerely asking for clarification, or whether that would be pointless since you've anyway already decided that everything I write are flames and anything I'll answer you'll only use for further attacks against me? 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 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Bug#729203: CTTE and reasonable solutions
On 2014-02-03 12:18:45, Adrian Bunk wrote: Can you clarify whether you are sincerely asking for clarification, or whether that would be pointless since you've anyway already decided that everything I write are flames and anything I'll answer you'll only use for further attacks against me? It is interesting that you feel specifically targeted when I mention flames whereas I haven't specifically mentionned you were the source of the heat. There were numerous messages in this bug report so far and a number of them have been out of line. I would prefer if you would assume I was asking in good faith, in general. So yes, I am genuinely asking for clarification. A. -- À force de ne jamais réfléchir, on a un bonheur stupide - Jean Cocteau pgpwXdc75rYy6.pgp Description: PGP signature
Bug#729203: CTTE and reasonable solutions
On Mon, Feb 03, 2014 at 12:48:45PM -0500, Antoine Beaupré wrote: On 2014-02-03 12:18:45, Adrian Bunk wrote: Can you clarify whether you are sincerely asking for clarification, or whether that would be pointless since you've anyway already decided that everything I write are flames and anything I'll answer you'll only use for further attacks against me? It is interesting that you feel specifically targeted when I mention flames whereas I haven't specifically mentionned you were the source of the heat. There were numerous messages in this bug report so far and a number of them have been out of line. I would prefer if you would assume I was asking in good faith, in general. You used flames in an email directly answering to me, and in a sentence where you told someone to go ahead without even waiting for the clarification you just asked from me. You should re-read how that sounded to me. So yes, I am genuinely asking for clarification. First of all, your The library names of ffmpeg and libav now seem perfectly orthogonal is AFAIK not completely true, e.g. libswscale still seems to have the same soname in both projects. So you might end up mixing libav and ffmpeg libraries, and I wouldn't be sure that this would work smoothly in all cases. And if it would be true, then something like the suggested apt-get install ffmpeg would simply not do at all what was implied it would do. Let me use VLC as example: VLC (maintained by the same Debian multimedia maintainers as libav) is using the libav libraries, and therefore depends on them. When all libav libraries used by VLC have sonames different from the sonames of the ffmpeg libraries, then VLC will always use the libav libraries and never use any ffmpeg libraries at all. 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. But if someone wants, as Lorenzo suggested, an apt-get install ffmpeg to magically switch all applications like VLC from using libav to ffmpeg, then one of the requirements for that would clearly be that there would have to be two versions of all binaries and libraries using libav/ffmpeg in the archive - one compiled with libav, and one compiled with ffmpeg. That would be technically insane, and politically impossible unless CTTE (or a GR) would override the likely veto from the Debian multimedia maintainers for doing that in any of the packages they maintain. 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 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Bug#729203: CTTE and reasonable solutions
On 2014-02-03 16:22:38, Adrian Bunk wrote: On Mon, Feb 03, 2014 at 12:48:45PM -0500, Antoine Beaupré wrote: On 2014-02-03 12:18:45, Adrian Bunk wrote: Can you clarify whether you are sincerely asking for clarification, or whether that would be pointless since you've anyway already decided that everything I write are flames and anything I'll answer you'll only use for further attacks against me? It is interesting that you feel specifically targeted when I mention flames whereas I haven't specifically mentionned you were the source of the heat. There were numerous messages in this bug report so far and a number of them have been out of line. I would prefer if you would assume I was asking in good faith, in general. You used flames in an email directly answering to me, and in a sentence where you told someone to go ahead without even waiting for the clarification you just asked from me. You should re-read how that sounded to me. I am sorry you felt targeted, that was not my intention. So yes, I am genuinely asking for clarification. First of all, your The library names of ffmpeg and libav now seem perfectly orthogonal is AFAIK not completely true, e.g. libswscale still seems to have the same soname in both projects. So you might end up mixing libav and ffmpeg libraries, and I wouldn't be sure that this would work smoothly in all cases. I didn't know libswscale still had the same soname, but then I only summarily looked at the package contents. And if it would be true, then something like the suggested apt-get install ffmpeg would simply not do at all what was implied it would do. I would assume it would imply installing ffmpeg. :) Let me use VLC as example: VLC (maintained by the same Debian multimedia maintainers as libav) is using the libav libraries, and therefore depends on them. When all libav libraries used by VLC have sonames different from the sonames of the ffmpeg libraries, then VLC will always use the libav libraries and never use any ffmpeg libraries at all. 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. I think that would be a fair expectation. But if someone wants, as Lorenzo suggested, an apt-get install ffmpeg to magically switch all applications like VLC from using libav to ffmpeg, then one of the requirements for that would clearly be that there would have to be two versions of all binaries and libraries using libav/ffmpeg in the archive - one compiled with libav, and one compiled with ffmpeg. I reread Lorenzo's email, and it doesn't actually say switch all applications like VLC from libav to ffmpeg. He just said: users should be able to do apt-get install ffmpeg or apr-get install libav I think some people here are talking about using ffmpeg as a commandline-based conversion tool, not necessarily the way you are bringing up, as a library that (say) vlc is linking against. That would be technically insane, and politically impossible unless CTTE (or a GR) would override the likely veto from the Debian multimedia maintainers for doing that in any of the packages they maintain. 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. :) Cheers, A. -- Ce que les siècles des grands abatoirs nous aura appris Devrait être inscrit au fond de toutes les écoles; Voici l'homme: le destructeur des mondes est arrivé. - [no one is innocent] pgpGyKghJNzs_.pgp Description: PGP signature
Bug#729203: CTTE and reasonable solutions
First of all, thank you very much for CC'ing me, as I am not receiving
things from this bug report (despite having tried to subscribe to the bug).
On Feb 03 2014, anarcat wrote:
On Fri, 10 Jan 2014 18:52:06 +0200, Adrian Bunk wrote:
It is a misconception that making this optional would be a reasonable
solution - in reality the hassle that would create would is so huge
that no sane person would want to implement the packaging for something
like that.
Doing that for local use might not be too hard, but doing it 100%
correct for a Debian release is simply not feasible.
Can you clarify why this is not possible? The library names of ffmpeg
and libav now seem perfectly orthogonal and it seems to me it should be
possible to ship Jessie with both libav and ffmpeg if someone would be
willing to package the latter.
As Antoine mentioned, with good intentions, it is possible to ship ffmpeg in
Debian in time for the release of jessie. The problem is that there may not
be as many good intentions and the wish to work jointly to make this happen,
which is another matter completely (otherwise, why have the libav fork in
the first place?).
It turns out that this is exactly what this bug report is about: we have
one brave soul that is volunteering for that effort. He has also clearly
stated why libav doesn't respond to his requirements.
Indeed, some people say that I like to work on packaging some hard to crack
packages (like handbrake, which required me to, essentially, patch the hell
out of it to make it compile and work work with Debian's libav and to avoid
the abundant use of embedded libraries; or the packaging of mongodb, which
was, essentially, dormant for some time, with bazillion embedded libraries
again, being used---it now has found some good hands to maintain it).
Regarding libav, it really, really falls short on many places in comparison
with ffmpeg. I can list features that it today, but they will be implemented
(well, some not) and, then, ffmpeg will have moved on with further useful
features that will be missing from libav and so on.
If you have objections against ffmpeg being packaged in Debian, I suggest
you clarify those instead of requiring Rogério to address the CTTE right
away, which seems to me a little abusive.
Indeed, seeing the whole init system decision (which I have been following
*every* single day quietly), I can only think that some (not all) can not
really judge the technical merits of some software.
Furthermore, technical excellence (even in the ideal case or in the more
pragmatic sense of well, it is not perfect, but it provides working
features that people really *need*) is being left behind with the current
decisions that Debian has taken.
Rogério, I would suggest you go ahead with the packaging and an upload,
don't let the flames fan your enthousiasm.
Thanks for the encouragement, Antoine. I am mostly paralized with this
situation and I don't really know how to proceed. I think that the forces of
having to potentially fight the tech-ctte, the pkg-multimedia-team, the
ftp-masters and some other people is that is preventing me right now from
packaging ffmpeg all by myself.
If other people join me in the work (and, most importantly, the
argumentation---well, the ffmpeg upstream team has been wonderfully
supportive of the initiative), then I may go on and package this thing.
Thanks for the support,
--
Rogério Brito : rbrito@{ime.usp.br,gmail.com} : GPG key 4096R/BCFC
http://cynic.cc/blog/ : github.com/rbrito : profiles.google.com/rbrito
DebianQA: http://qa.debian.org/developer.php?login=rbrito%40ime.usp.br
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Bug#729203: CTTE and reasonable solutions
On Mon, Feb 03, 2014 at 04:32:49PM -0500, Antoine Beaupré wrote: On 2014-02-03 16:22:38, Adrian Bunk wrote: ... But if someone wants, as Lorenzo suggested, an apt-get install ffmpeg to magically switch all applications like VLC from using libav to ffmpeg, then one of the requirements for that would clearly be that there would have to be two versions of all binaries and libraries using libav/ffmpeg in the archive - one compiled with libav, and one compiled with ffmpeg. I reread Lorenzo's email, and it doesn't actually say switch all applications like VLC from libav to ffmpeg. He just said: users should be able to do apt-get install ffmpeg or apr-get install libav I think some people here are talking about using ffmpeg as a commandline-based conversion tool, not necessarily the way you are bringing up, as a library that (say) vlc is linking against. Before what you quote he said in the same email: Agree with many on at least providing the *option* for users to have the original ffmpeg instead of libav There is no libav program, and he is clearly talking about the libraries. That would be technically insane, and politically impossible unless CTTE (or a GR) would override the likely veto from the Debian multimedia maintainers for doing that in any of the packages they maintain. 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. Or are you seriously saying chromium would use the ffmpeg commandline programs? The ffmpeg/libav commandline programs are relatively rarely used - what is used heavily on Linux are the libraries. Cheers, 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 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Bug#729203: CTTE and reasonable solutions
On Mon, Feb 03, 2014 at 08:13:43PM -0200, Rogério Brito wrote: ... Rogério, I would suggest you go ahead with the packaging and an upload, don't let the flames fan your enthousiasm. Thanks for the encouragement, Antoine. I am mostly paralized with this situation and I don't really know how to proceed. I think that the forces of having to potentially fight the tech-ctte, the pkg-multimedia-team, the ftp-masters and some other people is that is preventing me right now from packaging ffmpeg all by myself. If other people join me in the work (and, most importantly, the argumentation---well, the ffmpeg upstream team has been wonderfully supportive of the initiative), then I may go on and package this thing. ... You do know that ffmpeg and gazillions of programs like vlc and handbrake compiled against ffmpeg are already packaged in the usual external repository? 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 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Bug#729203: CTTE and reasonable solutions
On 2014-02-03 17:25:40, Adrian Bunk wrote: Before what you quote he said in the same email: Agree with many on at least providing the *option* for users to have the original ffmpeg instead of libav There is no libav program, and he is clearly talking about the libraries. I assumed libav included programs, and that is also what the wikipedia article says. But maybe lorenzo can tell better what he meant than us. I certainly mean that we could provide the program. That would be technically insane, and politically impossible unless CTTE (or a GR) would override the likely veto from the Debian multimedia maintainers for doing that in any of the packages they maintain. 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? The ffmpeg/libav commandline programs are relatively rarely used - what is used heavily on Linux are the libraries. I guess my use case is different then. Certainly there's a use case for the ffmpeg program just working properly in the first place. Taking a step back, there seems to be a lot of frustrations flying around that issue, maybe it would be better to keep an open mind and try to fix issues 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, 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... 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? 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... 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. A. -- To be naive and easily deceived is impermissible, today more than ever, when the prevailing untruths may lead to a catastrophe because they blind people to real dangers and real possibilities. - Erich Fromm pgpbFmb9Sv_Ra.pgp Description: PGP signature
Bug#729203: CTTE and reasonable solutions
On 2014-02-03 17:13:43, Rogério Brito wrote: Rogério, I would suggest you go ahead with the packaging and an upload, don't let the flames fan your enthousiasm. Thanks for the encouragement, Antoine. I am mostly paralized with this situation and I don't really know how to proceed. I think that the forces of having to potentially fight the tech-ctte, the pkg-multimedia-team, the ftp-masters and some other people is that is preventing me right now from packaging ffmpeg all by myself. I am not sure you should fight anyone here. Do the package, may it policy-clean and it will pass NEW. If someone wants to bring up something with the ctte, they can do it, but you don't have to right now. Having a discussion on pkg-multimedia may be necessary if other package dependencies should be changed, and it is probably good practice to discuss this topic on that mailing list, but it seems to me that people shouldn't object to the inclusion of another package in debian solely on the ground that they do not like it. If both packages are ABI-compatible, then ffmpeg can be designed as a drop-in replacement for libav and users will be free to choose. We have a policy for such procedures. Our social contract also says we should respond to the needs of users, and the overwhelming majority of people on this issue have voiced their need for a working ffmpeg implementation in Debian. We should respond to that. A. -- From the age of uniformity, from the age of solitude, from the age of Big Brother, from the age of doublethink - greetings! - Winston Smith, 1984 pgpggjYEO3yLa.pgp Description: PGP signature
Bug#729203: CTTE and reasonable solutions
On 2014-02-03 17:58:48, Antoine Beaupré wrote: I see there was one email about ffmpeg on the mailing list about a month ago, without any response, but that's all... I was talking about the deprecated debian-multimedia, my bad. A. -- The Net treats censorship as damage and routes around it. - John Gilmore pgpY6GLrhujJN.pgp Description: PGP signature
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 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Bug#729203: CTTE and reasonable solutions
On 04/02/14 12:08, Antoine Beaupré wrote: If both packages are ABI-compatible, then ffmpeg can be designed as a drop-in replacement for libav and users will be free to choose. As far as I understand it the problem is that it is *not* a drop-in replacement as far as the libraries are concerned, every package needs to be recompiled depending on which library should be used. So you would need two different packages for every program that uses the libraries if you wanted to offer both in parallel. And I don't think Adrian (or anyone else) is against ffmpeg as such, it's just that there should be made a decision which one to use in order to avoid these issues. Jan -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Bug#729203: Fwd: Re: Bug#729203: CTTE and reasonable solutions
Sorry, forgot to CC bug tracker... -- Forwarded message -- From: Timothy Gu timothyg...@gmail.com Date: Feb 3, 2014 3:28 PM Subject: Re: Bug#729203: CTTE and reasonable solutions To: Antoine Beaupré anar...@debian.org Cc: On Feb 3, 2014 3:12 PM, Antoine Beaupré anar...@debian.org wrote: On 2014-02-03 17:13:43, Rogério Brito wrote: Rogério, I would suggest you go ahead with the packaging and an upload, don't let the flames fan your enthousiasm. Thanks for the encouragement, Antoine. I am mostly paralized with this situation and I don't really know how to proceed. I think that the forces of having to potentially fight the tech-ctte, the pkg-multimedia-team, the ftp-masters and some other people is that is preventing me right now from packaging ffmpeg all by myself. I am not sure you should fight anyone here. Do the package, may it policy-clean and it will pass NEW. If someone wants to bring up something with the ctte, they can do it, but you don't have to right now. Having a discussion on pkg-multimedia may be necessary if other package dependencies should be changed, and it is probably good practice to discuss this topic on that mailing list, but it seems to me that people shouldn't object to the inclusion of another package in debian solely on the ground that they do not like it. If both packages are ABI-compatible, then ffmpeg can be designed as a drop-in replacement for libav and users will be free to choose. Mostly, but even with FFmpeg's attempt, not entirely IIRC. I tried to use abi-compliance-checker once, but failed, and i didnt have much time to delve into how to use it. Also Debian's very own ABI checking program icheck has some bugs, ironically, on testing FFmpeg http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=427461. We have a policy for such procedures. Our social contract also says we should respond to the needs of users, and the overwhelming majority of people on this issue have voiced their need for a working ffmpeg implementation in Debian. We should respond to that. Exactly. [...] Timothy
Bug#729203: CTTE and reasonable solutions
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 pgpC_X41YBFWu.pgp Description: PGP signature
Bug#729203: Fwd: Re: Bug#729203: CTTE and reasonable solutions
Sorry, forgot to CC bug tracker... -- Forwarded message -- From: Timothy Gu timothyg...@gmail.com Date: Feb 3, 2014 3:32 PM Subject: Re: Bug#729203: CTTE and reasonable solutions To: Adrian Bunk b...@stusta.de Cc: On Feb 3, 2014 3:24 PM, Adrian Bunk b...@stusta.de wrote: That is a mess, and would have to be sorted out by the Debian libav and ffmpeg maintainers before such an upload could happen. Agreed. But not exactly sure whether pkg-multimedia would want to collaborate... Timothy
Bug#729203: Fwd: Re: Bug#729203: CTTE and reasonable solutions
Sorry, forgot to CC bug tracker... -- Forwarded message -- From: Timothy Gu timothyg...@gmail.com Date: Feb 3, 2014 3:56 PM Subject: Re: Bug#729203: CTTE and reasonable solutions To: Jan Larres j...@majutsushi.net Cc: On Feb 3, 2014 3:39 PM, Jan Larres j...@majutsushi.net wrote: On 04/02/14 12:08, Antoine Beaupré wrote: If both packages are ABI-compatible, then ffmpeg can be designed as a drop-in replacement for libav and users will be free to choose. As far as I understand it the problem is that it is *not* a drop-in replacement as far as the libraries are concerned, every package needs to be recompiled depending on which library should be used. So you would need two different packages for every program that uses the libraries if you wanted to offer both in parallel. And I don't think Adrian (or anyone else) is against ffmpeg as such, it's just that there should be made a decision which one to use in order to avoid these issues. It's not as bad as you think. FFmpeg has a --enable-libav-incompatible-abi configure option. Didn't test the effectiveness of it though. Timothy Jan -- To unsubscribe, send mail to 729203-unsubscr...@bugs.debian.org.
