Bug#729203: Reintroducing FFmpeg to Debian
Hi Everyone, Just wanted to let you know, I'm still working on my ppa (I'm still trying to fund the test bench). As well, there is a discussion on Ubuntu forums; http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=2149564p=13100237#post13100237 . From My Research Desk :) On 08/09/2014 08:27 AM, Andreas Cadhalpun wrote: Hi Jonas, On 09.08.2014 13:51, Jonas Smedegaard wrote: Quoting Andreas Cadhalpun (2014-08-09 13:34:04) On 09.08.2014 11:45, Charles Plessy wrote: I searched for license information missing from your debian/copyright and could find only one case, libavutil/x86/x86inc.asm, which is under the ISC license. The debian/copyright file of your package looks comprehensive to me. Many thanks for the copyright review. (I know it is a lot of work.) I added the missing information you found (and also uppercased some license names to match the copyright format specification) [1]. It's probably not necessary to make a new upload to the NEW queue for this change. In the repository is a new upstream version anyway and it will be uploaded, once the current version gets accepted. In my experience you need not wait for ftpmaster approval to issue subsequent releases: When approving, they will simply approve the subsequent releases as well. If you don't release updates, you may risk that when ftpmaster finds time to inspect your package they find flaws (which you knew about and had prepared fixes for but did not in fact formally provide) - and you get the package rejected and need to wait for _next_ window that they find time to inspect it anew. Thanks for warning me, as that would indeed be unfortunate, so I'm going to ask my sponsor to make a new upload. Best regards, Andreas -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Bug#729203: Reintroducing FFmpeg to Debian
user debian-le...@lists.debian.org usertags 729203 one-copyright-review thanks Le Fri, Aug 08, 2014 at 01:53:15AM +0200, Andreas Cadhalpun a écrit : Now, could anyone review the debian/copyright file of ffmpeg? The sources are available in this repository: https://anonscm.debian.org/cgit/collab-maint/ffmpeg.git Hi Andreas, I searched for license information missing from your debian/copyright and could find only one case, libavutil/x86/x86inc.asm, which is under the ISC license. The debian/copyright file of your package looks comprehensive to me. Have a nice week-end, -- Charles Plessy Tsurumi, Kanagawa, Japan -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Bug#729203: Reintroducing FFmpeg to Debian
Hi Charles, On 09.08.2014 11:45, Charles Plessy wrote: I searched for license information missing from your debian/copyright and could find only one case, libavutil/x86/x86inc.asm, which is under the ISC license. The debian/copyright file of your package looks comprehensive to me. Many thanks for the copyright review. (I know it is a lot of work.) I added the missing information you found (and also uppercased some license names to match the copyright format specification) [1]. It's probably not necessary to make a new upload to the NEW queue for this change. In the repository is a new upstream version anyway and it will be uploaded, once the current version gets accepted. Best regards, Andreas 1: https://anonscm.debian.org/cgit/collab-maint/ffmpeg.git/commit/?id=d5f7788c60951684851ac8ef7fbb468bd385cdeb -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Bug#729203: Reintroducing FFmpeg to Debian
Quoting Andreas Cadhalpun (2014-08-09 13:34:04) On 09.08.2014 11:45, Charles Plessy wrote: I searched for license information missing from your debian/copyright and could find only one case, libavutil/x86/x86inc.asm, which is under the ISC license. The debian/copyright file of your package looks comprehensive to me. Many thanks for the copyright review. (I know it is a lot of work.) I added the missing information you found (and also uppercased some license names to match the copyright format specification) [1]. It's probably not necessary to make a new upload to the NEW queue for this change. In the repository is a new upstream version anyway and it will be uploaded, once the current version gets accepted. In my experience you need not wait for ftpmaster approval to issue subsequent releases: When approving, they will simply approve the subsequent releases as well. If you don't release updates, you may risk that when ftpmaster finds time to inspect your package they find flaws (which you knew about and had prepared fixes for but did not in fact formally provide) - and you get the package rejected and need to wait for _next_ window that they find time to inspect it anew. - Jonas -- * Jonas Smedegaard - idealist Internet-arkitekt * Tlf.: +45 40843136 Website: http://dr.jones.dk/ [x] quote me freely [ ] ask before reusing [ ] keep private signature.asc Description: signature
Bug#729203: Reintroducing FFmpeg to Debian
Hi Jonas, On 09.08.2014 13:51, Jonas Smedegaard wrote: Quoting Andreas Cadhalpun (2014-08-09 13:34:04) On 09.08.2014 11:45, Charles Plessy wrote: I searched for license information missing from your debian/copyright and could find only one case, libavutil/x86/x86inc.asm, which is under the ISC license. The debian/copyright file of your package looks comprehensive to me. Many thanks for the copyright review. (I know it is a lot of work.) I added the missing information you found (and also uppercased some license names to match the copyright format specification) [1]. It's probably not necessary to make a new upload to the NEW queue for this change. In the repository is a new upstream version anyway and it will be uploaded, once the current version gets accepted. In my experience you need not wait for ftpmaster approval to issue subsequent releases: When approving, they will simply approve the subsequent releases as well. If you don't release updates, you may risk that when ftpmaster finds time to inspect your package they find flaws (which you knew about and had prepared fixes for but did not in fact formally provide) - and you get the package rejected and need to wait for _next_ window that they find time to inspect it anew. Thanks for warning me, as that would indeed be unfortunate, so I'm going to ask my sponsor to make a new upload. Best regards, Andreas -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Bug#729203: Reintroducing FFmpeg to Debian
user debian-le...@lists.debian.org usertags 729203 copyright-review-requested thanks Hi Charles, On 06.08.2014 13:55, Charles Plessy wrote: A few years ago, I made a proposal for peer-reviewing copyright files in the NEW queue. https://wiki.debian.org/CopyrightReview The goal is not to substitute for the inspection by the FTP Master team, but to correct defects before their review, therefore saving their time. This looks like a good idea, but unfortunately it seems not to be an often used process. I have done a few dozens of these reviews and share Thorsten's impression in general (althouth in my opinion 80 % is quite an upper-range estimate…). I have no accurate numbers, but I just reviewed three packages [1-3] and found problems in all of them. It's a rather small sample size, but still... I encourage everybody who uploads to the NEW queue to review some packages in exchange. To help people reviewing your package, please make sure that a copy is accessible (source packages in the NEW queue are not accessible outside the FTP Master team). Now, could anyone review the debian/copyright file of ffmpeg? The sources are available in this repository: https://anonscm.debian.org/cgit/collab-maint/ffmpeg.git Best regards, Andreas 1: https://bugs.debian.org/686447 2: https://bugs.debian.org/735884 3: https://bugs.debian.org/683746 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Bug#729203: Reintroducing FFmpeg to Debian
On 28/07/14, 01:20am, Andreas Cadhalpun wrote: Hi all, some of you may have noticed a weird ffmpeg package in the NEW queue[1]. Let me explain: In 2011 Libav[2] was forked from FFmpeg[3]. It was a time of great uncertainty, the fork happened with much drama that didn't help making a technical cut, and at that peculiar time Debian switched to Libav. Hi Andreas and everyone, FWIW, my experience with this is that I had to make my own FFmpeg package a while ago [0] because I needed it for a project I was working on at the moment [1]. [0] https://github.com/ghostbar/FFmpeg.deb [1] https://github.com/ghostbar/RTSP-Streaming.js The reason for having to package my own FFmpeg is the current libav which is taking the space of ffmpeg seemed to conflict with every other ffmpeg package out there, including marillat's and for my project I actually needed ffmpeg, not libav since it didn't had the functionality. (More specifically: the ability to take still images from an rtsp stream). Not having FFmpeg available in the debian repositories is a nuissance, and certainly having libav instead which seems to be a fork yet not having the full FFmpeg functionality and using the same package name is worst. I didn't figured this out at first because the binary said `ffmpeg`. Of course, I'm talking about [2] since now that seems to not be an issue yet remains the lack of functionality. [2] https://packages.debian.org/wheezy/ffmpeg If the issue is that this would mean having to fix security bugs twice then it would be reasonable to stop shipping libav and instead ship ffmpeg, since has more functionality and AFAICS from their repos bunch of active bug-fixing. I honestly do not understand why ffmpeg is not in the repos nor why there seems to be an active movement to block it. Kind regards. -- Jose Luis Rivas · ghostbar http://ghostbar.co The Debian Project · http://www.debian.org GPG · D278 F9C1 5E54 61AA 3C1E 2FCD 13EC 43EE B9AC 8C43 signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Bug#729203: Reintroducing FFmpeg to Debian
Hi all,
some of you may have noticed a weird ffmpeg package in the NEW queue[1].
Let me explain:
In 2011 Libav[2] was forked from FFmpeg[3]. It was a time of great
uncertainty, the fork happened with much drama that didn't help making a
technical cut, and at that peculiar time Debian switched to Libav.
Since then the two projects evolved differently, and we have now a
clearer view.
Some short answers to questions you might have now:
* Why is FFmpeg needed in Debian?
- It has features our users are asking for (mostly support for more
codecs, formats and filters)[4-6].
- Some applications break when built against Libav on Debian,
because they are developed using FFmpeg[7-10].
- There are issues[11-12] in Libav's command line tools, that can't
be reproduced with FFmpeg's tools.
- It has a big and active user and developer community. Those of
them who want to use Debian currently need to install FFmpeg from
third parties or compile their own version from source.
* Do you intend to replace Libav by FFmpeg in Debian?
No, there is no need to replace anything as long as it is maintained.
Currently the main goal is to give multimedia maintainers a choice
between the two sets of libraries to link against, and our users the
choice to use the 'ffmpeg' utility. That is possible, because the
packages are co-installable. (Only the *-dev packages conflict.)
* But I thought they were forks, why don't you just create conflicting
packages?
- Because it can't really work! If we do that, packages built with
FFmpeg won't be installable next to packages built with Libav
unless we have full binary compatibility.
- Binary compatibility can only be achieved with some tradeoffs:
a) Not all soversions of the libraries match, so we would have
to patch that away.
b) FFmpeg would have to be compiled with the configure option
--enable-incompatible-libav-abi, resulting in less tested
code paths.
c) FFmpeg and Libav would need to be updated at the same time.
d) The biggest problem is that this would allow applications only
to use the minimal set of the ABI supported by both.
* I do not believe you, explain that voodoo to me: How is it that it
won't break all of Debian and make kittens cry?
(aka: How is FFmpeg packaged for Debian?)
- We built the packages in a way that avoids filename conflicts.
The sonames of the FFmpeg libraries are suffixed with '-ffmpeg',
e.g. libavcodec-ffmpeg.so.55 instead of libavcodec.so.55.
This also means that only if a package uses pkg-config to detect
the correct linker flags, you can simply install e.g. the
libavcodec-ffmpeg-dev package and it will work transparently.
(About half the packages build with no further change, see
stats below.)
- From a user point of view, the tools have different names anyway,
e.g. ffmpeg and avconv, except for qt-faststart, which is
therefore packaged in a separate binary package that diverts
the Libav version to qt-faststart.libav.
Yes, you can have /usr/bin/ffmpeg and /usr/bin/avconv at the same
time without conflicts.
- The development packages have to conflict, because they provide
header files (and pkg-config files) with identical names in
identical locations.
- To avoid potential problems when a program is linked against
FFmpeg libraries and other libraries, which in turn are linked
against Libav, the symbol versions are changed to e.g.
LIBAVCODEC_FFMPEG_55 instead of LIBAVCODEC_55.
* Ok, let's say I'm a multimedia maintainer and want to try out
building my package against your ffmpeg, what should I do?
- If your package uses pkg-config, which is commonly the case, all
you have to do is to replace all lib{av,swscale,postproc}*-dev
build-dependencies by lib{av,swscale,postproc}*-ffmpeg-dev.
You can keep the Libav build-dependencies as alternatives.
- In the (odd) case your upstream doesn't use pkg-config
(52 packages), it's probably a good idea to start using it, so
that the program can be easily built with both.
The patches are usually quite simple as you can see in this
example:
--- squeezelite-1.6.orig/Makefile
+++ squeezelite-1.6/Makefile
@@ -26,7 +26,7 @@ LINK_ALSA= -lasound
LINK_PORTAUDIO = -lportaudio
LINKALL = -lFLAC -lmad -lvorbisfile -lfaad -lmpg123
-LINKALL_FF = -lavcodec -lavformat -lavutil
+LINKALL_FF = $(shell pkg-config --libs libavcodec libavformat
libavutil)
LINKALL_RESAMPLE = -lsoxr
DEPS = squeezelite.h slimproto.h
Patches for packages using Autoconf or Cmake are similarly
straight-forward.
- Sometimes other minor adjustments are needed. (13 packages)
- There are only 2 packages (opencv and ffms2) that would trigger a
needed transition, but that
