Re: mplayer 0.90, was Re: why mplayer not in Debian
Hi, Sam Hocevar wrote:
(statically linked for performance reasons, rotfl)
Well, when the glibc people had this discussion (the switch to ELF), the
performance penalty was found to be on the order of 5%.
I don't know whether modern CPUs' register aliasing hardware changes that
number.
Whether you consider that legitimate, or a fib, is up to you, but I'd say
that the class of machines where this would be right on the line between
real-time performance or not certainly isn't empty.
I don't know whether modern CPUs' register aliasing hardware changes that
number.
--
Matthias Urlichs | {M:U} IT Design @ m-u-it.de | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Disclaimer: The quote was selected randomly. Really. | http://smurf.noris.de
--
One of the most striking defferences between a cat and a lie is that a cat has
only nine lives.
Re: mplayer 0.90, was Re: why mplayer not in Debian
On Thu, Jul 24, 2003 at 10:18:22AM +0200, Matthias Urlichs wrote: Hi, Sam Hocevar wrote: (statically linked for performance reasons, rotfl) Well, when the glibc people had this discussion (the switch to ELF), the performance penalty was found to be on the order of 5%. I don't know whether modern CPUs' register aliasing hardware changes that number. On anything more recent than a 486, the answer is not a percentage, it's a research paper. Just to _describe_ the performance implications. And it's a different paper for each processor. On something like ia64, I don't think anybody even knows. At least, I've never seen a study of it. -- .''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield : :' : http://www.debian.org/ | `. `' | `- -- | pgpN2Ns3W4u8l.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: mplayer 0.90, was Re: why mplayer not in Debian
Hi, Andrew Suffield wrote:
On Thu, Jul 24, 2003 at 10:18:22AM +0200, Matthias Urlichs wrote:
Well, when the glibc people had this discussion (the switch to ELF),
the performance penalty was found to be on the order of 5%.
... by testing with somewhat typical programs.
I don't know whether modern CPUs' register aliasing hardware changes
that number.
On anything more recent than a 486, the answer is not a percentage,
It is -- if you do the same tests, and compare.
it's a research paper. Just to _describe_ the performance implications.
... assuming you want to translate the results to a different set of
tests.
... or, for that matter, if you want to interpret the variance you'll get
in the test results, assuming it's significant, which it probably will be.
--
Matthias Urlichs | {M:U} IT Design @ m-u-it.de | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Disclaimer: The quote was selected randomly. Really. | http://smurf.noris.de
--
Television has brought back murder into the home -- where it belongs.
-- Alfred Hitchcock
Re: mplayer 0.90, was Re: why mplayer not in Debian
On Thu, Jul 24, 2003 at 11:50:00AM +0200, Matthias Urlichs wrote: Hi, Andrew Suffield wrote: On Thu, Jul 24, 2003 at 10:18:22AM +0200, Matthias Urlichs wrote: Well, when the glibc people had this discussion (the switch to ELF), the performance penalty was found to be on the order of 5%. ... by testing with somewhat typical programs. I don't know whether modern CPUs' register aliasing hardware changes that number. On anything more recent than a 486, the answer is not a percentage, It is -- if you do the same tests, and compare. Well, you can get an *answer* that way, it's just not very accurate or useful :P it's a research paper. Just to _describe_ the performance implications. ... assuming you want to translate the results to a different set of tests. ... or, for that matter, if you want to interpret the variance you'll get in the test results, assuming it's significant, which it probably will be. You generally get a significant variance when you modify the input data. Although that doesn't always hold. -- .''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield : :' : http://www.debian.org/ | `. `' | `- -- | pgpwx0JRfPYzZ.pgp Description: PGP signature
mplayer 0.90, was Re: why mplayer not in Debian
well, I changed my mind a packaging of mplayer 0.90 is available at deb http://tonelli.sns.it/pub/mplayer/ ./ we asked for someone on debian-legal to scrutinize it and say if the work we did is enough to let this package in Debian it has also been uploaded to the queue (in case an ftp-installer wants to do the above task) A Mennucc1 wrote: I am still willing to mantain mplayer, but I will not do any work unless someone that has ftp-installer priviledge in Debian states that s/he will help (= examine it when we upload and tell if it can go into Debian, or why it cannot go) but, you see , that old enthusiasm ... :-) a.
Re: mplayer 0.90, was Re: why mplayer not in Debian
On Wed, Jul 23, 2003, Andrea Mennucc wrote: we asked for someone on debian-legal to scrutinize it and say if the work we did is enough to let this package in Debian The MPlayer tree contains an almost verbatim copy of libdvdcss (statically linked for performance reasons, rotfl) and a copy of ffmpeg's libavcodec library (you may want to have a look at the ffmpeg ITP to see issues raised by libavcodec). What amount of these libraries is still in your pristine sources? What amount is compiled? If you get legal advice about the packaging of these libraries, please tell me, as I would be very pleased to have them in Debian. -- Sam.
why mplayer not in Debian
hi I just want to say that some time ago Dariush Pietrzak [EMAIL PROTECTED] and I decided to package mplayer when we uploaded for the first time, the ftp-installer had some (good) reasons not to accept it so we went into it and tried to clear all possible problems w.r.t. DFSG: we sent e-mails to any author of any piece of code that was suspicious, and at the end we did a packaging of mplayer 0.90 rc4 that we thought was ok it is in deb http://tonelli.sns.it/pub/mplayer/ ./ unfortunately it has never been accepted, and we never received a reply when we uploaded it (and, I have sent many e-mails) also, last time I checked , mplayer was in the list of programs that cannot be packaged for Debian this is, simply said , why nobody is mantaining mplayer in Debian :-( I am still willing to mantain mplayer, but I will not do any work unless someone that has ftp-installer priviledge in Debian states that s/he will help (= examine it when we upload and tell if it can go into Debian, or why it cannot go) ( last time I tried, it looked as if there was some automatic filter that drops mplayer from the incoming queue: indeed, I never received the e-mail reply 'mplayer is new, please wait' that is sent on upload of a new package) a. ps: I am not subscribed to the list -- Andrea Mennucc E' un mondo difficile. Che vita intensa! (Tonino Carotone) pgpeZbvwqQAy2.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: why mplayer not in Debian
Hello On Tue, Jul 22, 2003 at 12:07:28PM +0200, A Mennucc1 wrote: *SNIP* ( last time I tried, it looked as if there was some automatic filter that drops mplayer from the incoming queue: indeed, I never received the e-mail reply 'mplayer is new, please wait' that is sent on upload of a new package) During debconf3 I think I understood that if you was able to convince debian-legal people that the mplayer package now actually is ok according to the DFSG then it should not be a problem to upload (if the debian-legal people tell ftp-master people). Regards, // Ola a. ps: I am not subscribed to the list -- Andrea Mennucc E' un mondo difficile. Che vita intensa! (Tonino Carotone) -- - Ola Lundqvist --- / [EMAIL PROTECTED] Annebergsslingan 37 \ | [EMAIL PROTECTED] 654 65 KARLSTAD | | +46 (0)54-10 14 30 +46 (0)70-332 1551 | | http://www.opal.dhs.org UIN/icq: 4912500 | \ gpg/f.p.: 7090 A92B 18FE 7994 0C36 4FE4 18A1 B1CF 0FE5 3DD9 / ---
Re: why mplayer not in Debian
Hi A Mennucc1, I just want to say that some time ago Dariush Pietrzak [EMAIL PROTECTED] and I decided to package mplayer when we uploaded for the first time, the ftp-installer had some (good) reasons not to accept it so we went into it and tried to clear all possible problems w.r.t. DFSG: we sent e-mails to any author of any piece of code that was suspicious, and at the end we did a packaging of mplayer 0.90 rc4 that we thought was ok I follow Debian Legal and I am aware that this issue was raised most recently in May: http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2003/debian-legal-200305/msg00618.html Have you or Dariush Pietrzak addressed Don Armstrong's response? It would be great to know that you have cleared the non-patent-related problems: mplayer may or may not have patent problems, but they are not what is stopping it from going into Debian. Please read the threads starting at [1] [2] for more information on why mplayer is currently not in debian. You may have sent emails but did you get replies, and where have you documented them? And did you let anyone know? Why doesn't there appear to have been any followup to Debian legal? I am still willing to mantain mplayer, but I will not do any work unless someone that has ftp-installer priviledge in Debian states that s/he will help (= examine it when we upload and tell if it can go into Debian, or why it cannot go) Well I'm also willing to download the mplayer source myself, extract it and type fakeroot debian/rules binary. What you need to be willing to address are the concerns that were raised. Please address Debian legal. ps: I am not subscribed to the list I have also emailed you my response. If as a Debian developer you are unwilling to subscribe perhaps you could check the archives: http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2003/debian-devel-200307/thrd4.html Or point your news client to nntp://news.gmane.org. Regards, Adam
Re: why mplayer not in Debian
On Tue, Jul 22, 2003 at 12:07:28PM +0200, A Mennucc1 wrote: ( last time I tried, it looked as if there was some automatic filter that drops mplayer from the incoming queue: indeed, I never received the e-mail reply 'mplayer is new, please wait' that is sent on upload of a new package) If you never got that email, then it's likely that there was something wrong with the upload and the ftpmasters never saw it. Was it properly signed, etc? Did it have a valid .changes file? Richard Braakman
Re: why mplayer not in Debian
hello I had actually asked for help on debian-legal, in [1] http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2003/debian-legal-200301/msg00173.html In our packaging of mplayer there is a file debian/README.Debian.2 that explain our study on the source of mplayer; and indeed in the e-mail [1] I clearly ask: debian-legal: please read debian/README.Debian.2 in the source; do you think that it is/isn't fit to go into Debian? but received only two comments ; the comment from Don Armstrong http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2003/debian-legal-200305/msg00618.html was about minor changes , and nobody posted a comment like NO the code is not licensed OK, you cannot upload so I will try to upload again a. On Tue, Jul 22, 2003 at 11:36:52PM +1200, Adam Warner wrote: Hi A Mennucc1, so we went into it and tried to clear all possible problems w.r.t. DFSG: we sent e-mails to any author of any piece of code that was suspicious, and at the end we did a packaging of mplayer 0.90 rc4 that we thought was ok I follow Debian Legal and I am aware that this issue was raised most recently in May: http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2003/debian-legal-200305/msg00618.html Have you or Dariush Pietrzak addressed Don Armstrong's response? It would be great to know that you have cleared the non-patent-related problems: yes: we studied the LICENSES and COPYRIGHT problem and not the PATENT problem: we read all the files in the source; for any file that was not clearly stating that the license was GPL or LGPL, we e-mailed developers to know where it came from; all of the above work is documented in debian/README.Debian.2 in the source mplayer may or may not have patent problems, but they are not what is stopping it from going into Debian. Please read the threads starting at [1] [2] for more information on why mplayer is currently not in debian. You may have sent emails but did you get replies, and where have you documented them? And did you let anyone know? Why doesn't there appear to have been any followup to Debian legal? I have read (most of) the above threads; I have e-mailed debian-legal (see [1]) I am still willing to mantain mplayer, but I will not do any work unless someone that has ftp-installer priviledge in Debian states that s/he will help (= examine it when we upload and tell if it can go into Debian, or why it cannot go) Well I'm also willing to download the mplayer source myself, extract it and type fakeroot debian/rules binary. What you need to be willing to address are the concerns that were raised. Please address Debian legal. I have already done , in [1] now would please someone in debian-legal address me :-) and read debian/ ps: I am not subscribed to the list I have also emailed you my response. If as a Debian developer you are unwilling to subscribe perhaps you could check the archives: http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2003/debian-devel-200307/thrd4.html (thanks, I am using that) Or point your news client to nntp://news.gmane.org. thanks, it is quite useful a. -- Andrea Mennucc E' un mondo difficile. Che vita intensa! (Tonino Carotone) pgppeysNYMISL.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: why mplayer not in Debian
On Tue, Jul 22, 2003 at 02:49:46PM +0300, Richard Braakman wrote: On Tue, Jul 22, 2003 at 12:07:28PM +0200, A Mennucc1 wrote: ( last time I tried, it looked as if there was some automatic filter that drops mplayer from the incoming queue: indeed, I never received the e-mail reply 'mplayer is new, please wait' that is sent on upload of a new package) If you never got that email, then it's likely that there was something wrong with the upload and the ftpmasters never saw it. Was it properly signed, etc? Did it have a valid .changes file? well... maybe I was a bit paranoid in the above comment ? :-) so now I go and upload again! a. -- Andrea Mennucc E' un mondo difficile. Che vita intensa! (Tonino Carotone) pgpw2NEsZSmYA.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: why mplayer not in Debian
On Tue, 22 Jul 2003, A Mennucc1 wrote: In our packaging of mplayer there is a file debian/README.Debian.2 that explain our study on the source of mplayer; and indeed in the e-mail [1] I clearly ask: debian-legal: please read debian/README.Debian.2 in the source; do you think that it is/isn't fit to go into Debian? Junichi Uekawa asked for the contents of README.Debian.2 to go in debian/copyright, where it belongs. I asked about the mpeg2dec issue, as it wasn't included in the list of files with problems in README.Debian.2. Neither of us received a response. You also probably don't want to modify the copyright statements in the codebase itself. Let upstream deal with that, and just clarify the license in the copyright file. Don Armstrong -- I'd never hurt another living thing. But if I did... It would be you. -- Chris Bishop http://www.chrisbishop.com/her/archives/her69.html http://www.donarmstrong.com http://www.anylevel.com http://rzlab.ucr.edu pgpSKtU02sv42.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: why mplayer not in Debian
[NB: I'm subscribed to -devel, no need to Cc: me.] On Tue, 22 Jul 2003, A Mennucc1 wrote: actually: the issue of J.U. is more about packaging than legal; This is true. on the issue about mpeg2dec... from http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2003/debian-legal-200301/msg00231.html I understood (incorrectly?) that it was not a big problem.. indeed the above message ends by Obviously, if -legal feels that's superfluous, so be it. There was a big discussion about indicating modifications and compliance with 2c. It's not really a big deal, but just one of the things I ran across almost a year ago. Ideally, upstream would just indicate where they got the files from, the date when they changed it, and who changed it. Until that point, a simple change in the diff stating everything above (or similar verbiage in compliance with 2c) should be enough. so: the only two answers (thank again) were not speaking of big license problems now is the big question: do you think that our (revised) source code can go in mplayer (but for above changes)? I asume you mean in Debian. I haven't seen any problems so far, but then again, I haven't had time to seriously look at the codebase. [I kind of stopped bothering after the whole flame war erupted, and assumed that someone like yourself, who used mplayer and was a DD would do the job.] If such issues show up, I'm beginning to think that we can deal with them with an RC bug... but that's really for ftp-master to decide. I would really love to know how many packages have been scrutinized so deeply for license problems as we did for mplayer! Some of the major packages have, but most haven't had the long standing legal issues that seem to have surrounded mplayer since its inception. Thanks for your work in trying to get this package into Debian. Don Armstrong [Who goes back to trying to get Adaptec to make a license statement about dptutils.] -- Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed. This world in arms is not spending money alone. It is spending the sweat of its laborers, the genius of its scientists, the hopes of its children. This is not a way of life at all in any true sense. Under the clouds of war, it is humanity hanging on a cross of iron. -- Dwight Eisenhower, April 16, 1953 http://www.donarmstrong.com http://www.anylevel.com http://rzlab.ucr.edu pgpjj0UUB1Vdd.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: why mplayer not in Debian
On Tue, Jul 22, 2003 at 10:45:29AM -0700, Don Armstrong wrote: On Tue, 22 Jul 2003, A Mennucc1 wrote: Junichi Uekawa asked for the contents of README.Debian.2 to go in debian/copyright, where it belongs. I asked about the mpeg2dec issue, as it wasn't included in the list of files with problems in README.Debian.2. (yes I do remember, and thanks for caring) Neither of us received a response. well I had no reply ! :-) that is, I do (easily) agree with your two comments actually: the issue of J.U. is more about packaging than legal; on the issue about mpeg2dec... from http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2003/debian-legal-200301/msg00231.html I understood (incorrectly?) that it was not a big problem.. indeed the above message ends by Obviously, if -legal feels that's superfluous, so be it. You also probably don't want to modify the copyright statements in the codebase itself. Let upstream deal with that, and just clarify the license in the copyright file. ok so: the only two answers (thank again) were not speaking of big license problems now is the big question: do you think that our (revised) source code can go in mplayer (but for above changes)? (I call it revised source code since we have deleted some files from the upstream tarball ) a. (ps: last year I spent days reading each and any source file, sending e-mails to authors and googl-ing around to be certain of the origin and then of the copyright and the license! I would really love to know how many packages have been scrutinized so deeply for license problems as we did for mplayer! ) -- andrea Mennucc E' un mondo difficile. Che vita intensa! (Tonino Carotone) pgpHH1RKmmkXA.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: why mplayer not in Debian
Hi A Mennucc1, I had actually asked for help on debian-legal, in [1] http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2003/debian-legal-200301/msg00173.html This and the follow-ups you have now received are great. It must be very frustrating when so much time goes by that someone like myself misses all the context of six months ago. Sorry. I have also emailed you my response. If as a Debian developer you are unwilling to subscribe perhaps you could check the archives: http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2003/debian-devel-200307/thrd4.html (thanks, I am using that) Or point your news client to nntp://news.gmane.org. thanks, it is quite useful You can also post via this gateway via your news client (as I do). The first time you go to post for each mailing list you will have to respond to an authorisation request, so make sure you use a valid email address when posting. Regards, Adam
