Re: Bug#654984: libav: Please use a less confusing package name
Am 11.01.2012 01:19, schrieb Carl Eugen Hoyos: libav is just one of several FFmpeg forks, all forks share several security issues and many known bugs and regressions not present in FFmpeg, see the FFmpeg bug tracker for details Schily?! ;) ___ pkg-multimedia-maintainers mailing list pkg-multimedia-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pkg-multimedia-maintainers
Re: Bug#654984: libav: Please use a less confusing package name
Hans-Christoph Steiner hans at at.or.at writes: I'm not really convinced by 'avtools' and 'avutils', as both seem pretty generic to me. 'libav' was chosen to follow the name change of the project 'ffmpeg'-'libav'. To clarify: There was no name change, the FFmpeg project is active with no name change at http://ffmpeg.org libav is just one of several FFmpeg forks, all forks share several security issues and many known bugs and regressions not present in FFmpeg, see the FFmpeg bug tracker for details How about we keep this fight out of Debian? It seems clear that the place for libav bug reports would be the libav bug tracker. You are completely right, some issues that were fixed in FFmpeg (but are still reproducible with avconv) are listed on the forks' bugtracker, but many more issues are listed as fixed tickets on FFmpeg trac, that is why I recommend it as a resource. It also seems clear libav is an ffmpeg fork, and ffmpeg is also alive as a project. This is exactly what I was trying to clarify, I don't think this was clear in the original mail above, sorry if you feel my mail wasn't clear either. Its certainly not the first time such a thing has happened in the world of free software. I don't claim that's not true, but I do not know of an example. I think there should also be room for someone to package ffmpeg for Debian if they wanted to since it provides different things than libav. That would be great, Michael has suggested this several times since the fork happened, it was even discussed on this list. The FFmpeg developers would certainly strongly support that. I see no reason for Debian policy to dictate that ffmpeg not be allowed in Debian, please illuminate me if you believe otherwise. I do fear that useful software (ffmpeg in this case) will be prevented from inclusion in Debian. +1 Carl Eugen ___ pkg-multimedia-maintainers mailing list pkg-multimedia-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pkg-multimedia-maintainers
Re: Bug#654984: libav: Please use a less confusing package name
On Jan 10, 2012, at 7:19 PM, Carl Eugen Hoyos wrote: Reinhard Tartler siretart at gmail.com writes: I'm not really convinced by 'avtools' and 'avutils', as both seem pretty generic to me. 'libav' was chosen to follow the name change of the project 'ffmpeg'-'libav'. To clarify: There was no name change, the FFmpeg project is active with no name change at http://ffmpeg.org libav is just one of several FFmpeg forks, all forks share several security issues and many known bugs and regressions not present in FFmpeg, see the FFmpeg bug tracker for details Carl Eugen How about we keep this fight out of Debian? It seems clear that the place for libav bug reports would be the libav bug tracker. It also seems clear libav is an ffmpeg fork, and ffmpeg is also alive as a project. Its certainly not the first time such a thing has happened in the world of free software. I think there should also be room for someone to package ffmpeg for Debian if they wanted to since it provides different things than libav. I see no reason for Debian policy to dictate that ffmpeg not be allowed in Debian, please illuminate me if you believe otherwise. I do fear that useful software (ffmpeg in this case) will be prevented from inclusion in Debian. .hc A cellphone to me is just an opportunity to be irritated wherever you are. - Linus Torvalds ___ pkg-multimedia-maintainers mailing list pkg-multimedia-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pkg-multimedia-maintainers
Re: Bug#654984: libav: Please use a less confusing package name
Reinhard Tartler siretart at gmail.com writes: I'm not really convinced by 'avtools' and 'avutils', as both seem pretty generic to me. 'libav' was chosen to follow the name change of the project 'ffmpeg'-'libav'. To clarify: There was no name change, the FFmpeg project is active with no name change at http://ffmpeg.org libav is just one of several FFmpeg forks, all forks share several security issues and many known bugs and regressions not present in FFmpeg, see the FFmpeg bug tracker for details Carl Eugen ___ pkg-multimedia-maintainers mailing list pkg-multimedia-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pkg-multimedia-maintainers
Re: Bug#654984: libav: Please use a less confusing package name
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 2012-01-07 21:47, Paul Gevers wrote: It was specifically design for migration purposes. Still, you might want to update the dependencies for your package and update it to use '/usr/bin/avconf' instead of '/usr/bin/ffmpeg'. If I understand correctly (I have not yet looked at the real content of the libav package) you are providing a /usr/bin/ffmpeg binary (for now). That seems fine with me, and I will let my upstream know that for Debian the way to go is /usr/bin/avconf. I assume other distributions are doing the same, lets try to make sure we stay in sync as much as possible (although we might be leading the way wouldn't using an alternative/diversion of /usr/bin/ffmpeg to /usr/bin/avconv be a good idea? even if ffmpeg is not going to be packaged as such within the foreseeable future? iiuc, libav is meant as a _replacement_ of ffmpeg, so i don't see a compelling reason to wipe out all traces of the former package. fgmasdr IOhannes -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ iEYEARECAAYFAk8KrPMACgkQkX2Xpv6ydvQZjgCeNrhM5gqHZx8ccRG1X5DZEKuS bXQAoLOYN7ypiqR/lEhnQLKaAbU5YICN =HOFd -END PGP SIGNATURE- smime.p7s Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature ___ pkg-multimedia-maintainers mailing list pkg-multimedia-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pkg-multimedia-maintainers
Bug#654984: libav: Please use a less confusing package name
On Mon, Jan 9, 2012 at 10:01 AM, IOhannes m zmoelnig zmoel...@iem.at wrote: -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 2012-01-07 21:47, Paul Gevers wrote: It was specifically design for migration purposes. Still, you might want to update the dependencies for your package and update it to use '/usr/bin/avconf' instead of '/usr/bin/ffmpeg'. Fabian is right, I meant to write '/usr/bin/avconv' of course. If I understand correctly (I have not yet looked at the real content of the libav package) you are providing a /usr/bin/ffmpeg binary (for now). That seems fine with me, and I will let my upstream know that for Debian the way to go is /usr/bin/avconf. I assume other distributions are doing the same, lets try to make sure we stay in sync as much as possible (although we might be leading the way wouldn't using an alternative/diversion of /usr/bin/ffmpeg to /usr/bin/avconv be a good idea? even if ffmpeg is not going to be packaged as such within the foreseeable future? In order to not break existing scripts, the (now named) libav-tools package ships both /usr/bin/ffmpeg as well as /usr/bin/avconv. The former is deprecated and conserves the old behavior, while the new one provides a more consistent command-line interface. The utility /usr/bin/ffmpeg may go away in future libav releases. iiuc, libav is meant as a _replacement_ of ffmpeg, so i don't see a compelling reason to wipe out all traces of the former package. Both libav as a project as well as I as packager both take the migration path seriously. -- regards, Reinhard ___ pkg-multimedia-maintainers mailing list pkg-multimedia-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pkg-multimedia-maintainers
Bug#654984: libav: Please use a less confusing package name
On Sat, Jan 7, 2012 at 6:39 PM, Guillem Jover guil...@debian.org wrote: Package: libav Version: 4:0.8~beta1-2 Severity: wishlist Hi! There's now a libav binary package in experimental, which ffmpeg transitions to (due to the upstream change). The thing is that I initially got pretty confused by the name, and on a quick glance thought it was a metapackage for the shared libraries(!). In any case given our current conventions naming a tools/utils package libfoo seems pretty confusing in general, and I'd not expect to find those there. Could you consider renaming the package to something like avtools, avutils, or similar maybe? Although the second might not be a good choice as it could be confused to be related exclusively to libavutil. Would 'libav-bin' or maybe 'libav-tools' be better? I'm not really convinced by 'avtools' and 'avutils', as both seem pretty generic to me. 'libav' was chosen to follow the name change of the project 'ffmpeg'-'libav'. -- regards, Reinhard ___ pkg-multimedia-maintainers mailing list pkg-multimedia-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pkg-multimedia-maintainers
Bug#654984: libav: Please use a less confusing package name
On Sat, 2012-01-07 at 19:03:23 +0100, Reinhard Tartler wrote: On Sat, Jan 7, 2012 at 6:39 PM, Guillem Jover guil...@debian.org wrote: Package: libav Version: 4:0.8~beta1-2 Severity: wishlist There's now a libav binary package in experimental, which ffmpeg transitions to (due to the upstream change). The thing is that I initially got pretty confused by the name, and on a quick glance thought it was a metapackage for the shared libraries(!). In any case given our current conventions naming a tools/utils package libfoo seems pretty confusing in general, and I'd not expect to find those there. Could you consider renaming the package to something like avtools, avutils, or similar maybe? Although the second might not be a good choice as it could be confused to be related exclusively to libavutil. Would 'libav-bin' or maybe 'libav-tools' be better? Yeah definitely, that also occurred to me just immediately after having sent the bug report. I'm not really convinced by 'avtools' and 'avutils', as both seem pretty generic to me. Right, I even checked for similarly named packages previously on the archive, but I guess I was misremembering something else, also googled and there seems to be quite a bit of avtools or avutils. 'libav' was chosen to follow the name change of the project 'ffmpeg'-'libav'. Sure, I understood the logic after the first “shock”, but I did not find it compelling. :) thanks, guillem ___ pkg-multimedia-maintainers mailing list pkg-multimedia-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pkg-multimedia-maintainers
Bug#654984: libav: Please use a less confusing package name
On Sat, Jan 7, 2012 at 9:04 PM, Paul Gevers p...@climbing.nl wrote: Then let's go with 'libav-tools', unless someone objects that is. Just to be sure, we are talking about the binaries here right? As the source name seems fine with me and is no problem, right? I don't think users would understand this name any better than ffmpeg, but I think the lib start might frighten some unnecessary. Although I believe it is near the least confusing alternatives, so I agree. Well, the name 'ffmpeg' is definitely wrong, after all. Better suggestions welcome. Anyway, if we are going that way, please do provide a transition path for dependencies of ffmpeg. E.g. my package Winff depends on the binary ffmpeg (not on the libav libraries). I would hate it when that suddenly start breaking just for a rename. Please have a look at this package: http://packages.debian.org/experimental/ffmpeg It was specifically design for migration purposes. Still, you might want to update the dependencies for your package and update it to use '/usr/bin/avconf' instead of '/usr/bin/ffmpeg'. -- regards, Reinhard ___ pkg-multimedia-maintainers mailing list pkg-multimedia-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pkg-multimedia-maintainers
Bug#654984: libav: Please use a less confusing package name
Then let's go with 'libav-tools', unless someone objects that is. Just to be sure, we are talking about the binaries here right? As the source name seems fine with me and is no problem, right? I don't think users would understand this name any better than ffmpeg, but I think the lib start might frighten some unnecessary. Although I believe it is near the least confusing alternatives, so I agree. Well, the name 'ffmpeg' is definitely wrong, after all. Better suggestions welcome. Hmm, I meant that I agree with libav-tools. Anyway, if we are going that way, please do provide a transition path for dependencies of ffmpeg. E.g. my package Winff depends on the binary ffmpeg (not on the libav libraries). I would hate it when that suddenly start breaking just for a rename. Please have a look at this package: http://packages.debian.org/experimental/ffmpeg It was specifically design for migration purposes. Still, you might want to update the dependencies for your package and update it to use '/usr/bin/avconf' instead of '/usr/bin/ffmpeg'. If I understand correctly (I have not yet looked at the real content of the libav package) you are providing a /usr/bin/ffmpeg binary (for now). That seems fine with me, and I will let my upstream know that for Debian the way to go is /usr/bin/avconf. I assume other distributions are doing the same, lets try to make sure we stay in sync as much as possible (although we might be leading the way). Paul signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ pkg-multimedia-maintainers mailing list pkg-multimedia-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pkg-multimedia-maintainers
Bug#654984: libav: Please use a less confusing package name
'/usr/bin/avconf' instead of '/usr/bin/ffmpeg'. s/avconf/avconv/ that is. ;) ___ pkg-multimedia-maintainers mailing list pkg-multimedia-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pkg-multimedia-maintainers
