Bug#729203: (no subject)
On Fri, Jan 10, 2014 at 03:40:48PM -0800, Timothy Gu wrote: > On Jan 10, 2014 8:54 AM, "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. > > API/ABI sure is a problem, but please look at how Gentoo and potentially > some other distros do that (e.g. Homebrew). >... Any build-from-source distro can simply force a "rebuild everything using ffmpeg/libav" when switching between libav and ffmpeg. That's a completely different situation. > 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-wnpp-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20140112175414.gc1...@bunk.dyndns.info
Bug#729203: (no subject)
Hi Adrian, Sorry if this is a duplicated mail because I forgot to CC the bug list. On Jan 10, 2014 8:54 AM, "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. API/ABI sure is a problem, but please look at how Gentoo and potentially some other distros do that (e.g. Homebrew). Also in case you don't already know, FFmpeg tries very hard to preserve both backwards and Libav compatibility. And this is essential to packagers. Timothy
Bug#729203: (no subject)
On 2014-01-10 21:50:37, Georg Lippitsch wrote: > Am 10.01.2014, 17:52 Uhr, schrieb Adrian Bunk : > > 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. > > But anyways, the misleading naming of the packages should stop. If > Debian decides to go with libav, they should not name the package > ffmpeg. Repeatedly explaining to people that they do not have ffmpeg > on their computer despite typing "apt-get install ffmpeg" is really > annoying. The ffmpeg binary package does no longer exist in jessie and sid. It got removed at the end of September 2013. Regards -- Sebastian Ramacher signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Bug#729203: (no subject)
On Fri, Jan 10, 2014 at 09:50:37PM +0100, Georg Lippitsch wrote: > Am 10.01.2014, 17:52 Uhr, schrieb Adrian Bunk : > > 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. > > But anyways, the misleading naming of the packages should stop. If > Debian decides to go with libav, they should not name the package > ffmpeg. Repeatedly explaining to people that they do not have ffmpeg > on their computer despite typing "apt-get install ffmpeg" is really > annoying. That's already implimented in exactly the way you demand in unstable/testing: http://packages.debian.org/ffmpeg http://packages.debian.org/libav-tools > Georg 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-wnpp-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20140110205909.ga24...@bunk.dyndns.info
Bug#729203: (no subject)
Am 10.01.2014, 17:52 Uhr, schrieb Adrian Bunk : 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. But anyways, the misleading naming of the packages should stop. If Debian decides to go with libav, they should not name the package ffmpeg. Repeatedly explaining to people that they do not have ffmpeg on their computer despite typing "apt-get install ffmpeg" is really annoying. Georg -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-wnpp-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/op.w9hn6nugqe9...@georg.site
Bug#729203: (no subject)
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. > 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-wnpp-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20140110165206.ga25...@bunk.dyndns.info
Bug#729203: (no subject)
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. The 'deprecation' message is at least confusing and misleading. Without getting into the politics of the fork etc. users should be able to do apt-get install ffmpeg or apr-get install libav Am compiling ffmpeg manually and it's boring and time-consuming. And as a multimedia user I prefer ffmpeg to libav. Lorenzo. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-wnpp-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/52cf9e99.3040...@gmail.com
