Processed: Re: Bug#732159: Should this package be removed?
Processing commands for cont...@bugs.debian.org: > retitle 732159 RM: mplayer - RoM - unmaintained, RC-buggy, alternatives exist Bug #732159 [mplayer] Should this package be removed? Changed Bug title to 'RM: mplayer - RoM - unmaintained, RC-buggy, alternatives exist' from 'Should this package be removed?' > reassign 732159 ftp.debian.org Bug #732159 [mplayer] RM: mplayer - RoM - unmaintained, RC-buggy, alternatives exist Bug reassigned from package 'mplayer' to 'ftp.debian.org'. No longer marked as found in versions mplayer/2:1.0~rc4.dfsg1+svn34540-1. Ignoring request to alter fixed versions of bug #732159 to the same values previously set > thanks Stopping processing here. Please contact me if you need assistance. -- 732159: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=732159 Debian Bug Tracking System Contact ow...@bugs.debian.org with problems ___ 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#732159: Should this package be removed?
retitle 732159 RM: mplayer - RoM - unmaintained, RC-buggy, alternatives exist reassign 732159 ftp.debian.org thanks On Sun, Feb 16, 2014 at 12:16:59PM -0500, Reinhard Tartler wrote: > >> > Should this package be removed? If so, please reassign to ftp.debian.org > >> > > >> > - Last upload nearly two years ago > >> > - FTBFS for a long time > >> > - Incompatible with current libav > >> > - Alternatives exist (mplayer2, mpv) > >> > >> I tend to agree, however please keep in mind that this also removes > >> mencoder, for which no drop-in alternatives exist atm: Currently, two > >> packages depend on mencoder, toonloop and photofilmstrip: > > > > Shall we go ahead with the removal now? > > > > toonloop has been removed from testing half a year ago and the last > > maintainer upload was two years ago and photofilmstrip is already > > removed from jessie since half a year. popcon is marginal for both. > > > > We can ask FTP masters to remove mplayer forcefully despite the > > remaining reverse deps. > > In lack of any *constructive* comments about this, I would say yes, > let's remove them. > > Thanks for your work on this bug! Doing so. FTP masters; there are two reverse depends on mencoder: toonloop and photofilmstrip. Both are already dropped from testing for a long time. I think we should go ahead and drop mplayer despite the rdeps, if the maintainers fix their packages they can re-enter jessie, otherwise they'll also have to get removed at some point. Cheers, Moritz ___ 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#732159: Should this package be removed?
On Wed, Feb 19, 2014 at 08:24:01AM -0500, Reinhard Tartler wrote: > TBH, I'm a bit confused about your reply. I probably lost track of the point I was trying to make. I so far assumed that this issue was, bluntly put, about almost exclusively 1) MPlayer does not work against Libav But what you wrote sounded more like it's at least also 2) MPlayer has packaging issues I've mentioned this a few times over the years, I'd be interested in improving 2), and that is regardless of the status of this ticket. > On Mon, Feb 17, 2014 at 6:52 PM, Reimar Döffinger > wrote: > > On Sun, Feb 16, 2014 at 03:25:08PM -0500, Reinhard Tartler wrote: > >> On Sun, Feb 16, 2014 at 12:58 PM, Reimar Döffinger > >> wrote: > >> > What would constitute a constructive comment? > >> > >> Ideally "I am interested in making mplayer work against the libavcodec > >> that we have in Debian, and this is my work in progress". > > > > Well, I expect that making it build wouldn't be that hard, but it > > would be quite crippled and broken, > > and with the limited effort I > > am willing to spend on getting patches into Libav I won't be getting > > anywhere I would conclude from previous tries. > > I take this as that you (as upstream) do not want mplayer to be > compiled against libav. No it means "I feel unable to maintain support for that". And that is the same situation as right after the fork, nobody has stepped up since then to take on this task. (Yes, I am well aware that the mailing list climate was not helpful in attracting someone to do it, and I am sorry for that). > Besides, has development and support for mencoder been revived, or do > its developers still consider mencoder deprecated and/or obsolete? It's still on basic life support. So I don't think it should be considered a major concern. Still, ffmpeg/avconv in some cases still can't 100% replace it, especially if it's not the very latest of those, so I am of course still interested in not letting any users hang if there was some magic easy way to achieve it. > >> It was my sincere hope that this would be a sufficient incentive and > >> motivation to work on keeping mplayer/mencoder in debian. > >> Unfortunately, it seems I was wrong. > > > > Well, it was motivation to suggest several ways to get FFmpeg into > > Debian, since that is kind of the most realistic way to solve it, > > also since otherwise it won't be the version of MPlayer that > > is tested upstream. > > However so far this seems to be considered completely out of the > > question. > > Sorry, but taking mplayer as political argument to make pressure on > the FFmpeg vs. Libav conflict is not going to help anyone. Please have > this discussion elsewhere, e.g. in #729203. This was not mean political, this is about "solving" my point 1) above. If we agree that we see no way to solve/avoid that I think there is no point in dragging this out any further. > >> Personal remark here: mplayer was always problematic in Debian. Up to > >> today, it is not possible to even compile mplayer without removing its > >> internal copy of ffmpeg. > > > > Yes, no, maybe. I just looked into it. You have to provide matching > > copies of libavformat/internal.h (can be eliminated reasonably well if > > it's a concern) and libavutil/x86/asm.h (only issue here is that I don't > > like duplicating it). > > Nothing else is required. > > I missed that, did that change recently? I don't think so. I think it must have been like this at least a year, but no promises. I do not know if Debian might have used options like --enable-zr (that is the part that now no longer compiles), that one had hooks deep into FFmpeg, but I think it lost what little relevance it had years ago. > > I haven't tested the last release, and I don't know if only > > requiring these two headers I mentioned is good enough, > > but I would say it doesn't require an internal copy anymore. > > Well, if it was really only two (internal!) headers that it takes, why > doesn't mplayer embed them just like mplayer2 and mpv, and just ditch > the svn:external equivalent for git mechanism? This needs to be > disabled when packaging it for use with a system-provided libavcodec > anyways. If I make a copy of them I become responsible to maintain/update them. Which I'd only want to do if it's really the best solution to a significant problem. Plus, creating a ffmpeg/ directory automatically disables the automated FFmpeg download, so solving the one also fixes the other for you. > Nevertheless, if what you say is true, then current mplayer should be > indeed rather easy to compile against any copy of libavcodec. I expect there will be rough edges still, it's poorly tested. It's a long progress, and at the risk of offending from my point of view in part due to an unwillingness from the side of package maintainers to complain loudly and clearly. > > I even fixed configure so that if you have only those two files > > in ffmpeg/... it will default to compiling against a s
Bug#732159: Should this package be removed?
TBH, I'm a bit confused about your reply. On Mon, Feb 17, 2014 at 6:52 PM, Reimar Döffinger wrote: > On Sun, Feb 16, 2014 at 03:25:08PM -0500, Reinhard Tartler wrote: >> On Sun, Feb 16, 2014 at 12:58 PM, Reimar Döffinger >> wrote: >> > What would constitute a constructive comment? >> >> Ideally "I am interested in making mplayer work against the libavcodec >> that we have in Debian, and this is my work in progress". > > Well, I expect that making it build wouldn't be that hard, but it > would be quite crippled and broken, > and with the limited effort I > am willing to spend on getting patches into Libav I won't be getting > anywhere I would conclude from previous tries. I take this as that you (as upstream) do not want mplayer to be compiled against libav. That's a strong argument *for* removing it from Debian, which ships this version of libav, *and* has working and non-crippled alternatives to mplayer in the archive. Besides, has development and support for mencoder been revived, or do its developers still consider mencoder deprecated and/or obsolete? AFAIR, people on the mencoder/mplayer mailing lists have recommended to just use the command-line tool ffmpeg/avconv instead for a couple of years now. >> > mplayer2 is unmaintained and as far as I can tell mpv has completely >> > different command-line syntax at the least (though I am not well >> > informed about either). >> >> It was my sincere hope that this would be a sufficient incentive and >> motivation to work on keeping mplayer/mencoder in debian. >> Unfortunately, it seems I was wrong. > > Well, it was motivation to suggest several ways to get FFmpeg into > Debian, since that is kind of the most realistic way to solve it, > also since otherwise it won't be the version of MPlayer that > is tested upstream. > However so far this seems to be considered completely out of the > question. Sorry, but taking mplayer as political argument to make pressure on the FFmpeg vs. Libav conflict is not going to help anyone. Please have this discussion elsewhere, e.g. in #729203. > Which for me kind of leaves the question if the best MPlayer we > can offer under these circumstances is worth it. I guess the conclusion of this discussion tends to "no", although we disagree on the rationale. That's fair enough with me. >> > Libav compatibility is not intentionally broken upstream, but it >> > is not tested in any systematic way either (possibly not at all). >> >> This is not the primary concern or reason in the context of whether or >> not to remove mplayer/mencoder from Debian. The reason is that there >> is nobody who is interested enough to work on making it suitable in >> Debian. Otherwise we wouldn't have to remove the package from >> Debian/testing (jessie). > > This sounds to me like you see a difference between "Libav > compatibility" and "suitable in Debian"? > I'd be interested in that. Please contact me again in private about this. Let's keep this bug focused on arguments pro and contra removal of mplayer/mencoder from Debian. >> Personal remark here: mplayer was always problematic in Debian. Up to >> today, it is not possible to even compile mplayer without removing its >> internal copy of ffmpeg. > > Yes, no, maybe. I just looked into it. You have to provide matching > copies of libavformat/internal.h (can be eliminated reasonably well if > it's a concern) and libavutil/x86/asm.h (only issue here is that I don't > like duplicating it). > Nothing else is required. I missed that, did that change recently? > I haven't tested the last release, and I don't know if only > requiring these two headers I mentioned is good enough, > but I would say it doesn't require an internal copy anymore. Well, if it was really only two (internal!) headers that it takes, why doesn't mplayer embed them just like mplayer2 and mpv, and just ditch the svn:external equivalent for git mechanism? This needs to be disabled when packaging it for use with a system-provided libavcodec anyways. I guess the reason is that you still prefer to have it compile against the very latest tip of ffmpeg, which again, is not the typical configuration when integrating it into Debian. mplayer competitors mplayer2/mpv do not seem to be this demanding. Nevertheless, if what you say is true, then current mplayer should be indeed rather easy to compile against any copy of libavcodec. > I even fixed configure so that if you have only those two files > in ffmpeg/... it will default to compiling against a system FFmpeg. > Making a new release is something that would be good to do anyway. > _However_ none of this fixes the FFmpeg vs. Libav issues... Are they critical for Debian? I personally don't think so, because I don't consider the missing functionality that important. If it was, then it could be fixed if there was enough good will. However, the political pressure and the constant nagging from both developers and spectators result in a very aggressive and negative atmosphere, and thus
Bug#732159: Should this package be removed?
On Sun, Feb 16, 2014 at 03:25:08PM -0500, Reinhard Tartler wrote: > On Sun, Feb 16, 2014 at 12:58 PM, Reimar Döffinger > wrote: > > What would constitute a constructive comment? > > Ideally "I am interested in making mplayer work against the libavcodec > that we have in Debian, and this is my work in progress". Well, I expect that making it build wouldn't be that hard, but it would be quite crippled and broken, and with the limited effort I am willing to spend on getting patches into Libav I won't be getting anywhere I would conclude from previous tries. > > mplayer2 is unmaintained and as far as I can tell mpv has completely > > different command-line syntax at the least (though I am not well > > informed about either). > > It was my sincere hope that this would be a sufficient incentive and > motivation to work on keeping mplayer/mencoder in debian. > Unfortunately, it seems I was wrong. Well, it was motivation to suggest several ways to get FFmpeg into Debian, since that is kind of the most realistic way to solve it, also since otherwise it won't be the version of MPlayer that is tested upstream. However so far this seems to be considered completely out of the question. Which for me kind of leaves the question if the best MPlayer we can offer under these circumstances is worth it. > > Libav compatibility is not intentionally broken upstream, but it > > is not tested in any systematic way either (possibly not at all). > > This is not the primary concern or reason in the context of whether or > not to remove mplayer/mencoder from Debian. The reason is that there > is nobody who is interested enough to work on making it suitable in > Debian. Otherwise we wouldn't have to remove the package from > Debian/testing (jessie). This sounds to me like you see a difference between "Libav compatibility" and "suitable in Debian"? I'd be interested in that. > Personal remark here: mplayer was always problematic in Debian. Up to > today, it is not possible to even compile mplayer without removing its > internal copy of ffmpeg. Yes, no, maybe. I just looked into it. You have to provide matching copies of libavformat/internal.h (can be eliminated reasonably well if it's a concern) and libavutil/x86/asm.h (only issue here is that I don't like duplicating it). Nothing else is required. > This was only acceptable because I made sure > that its internal copy is only used at build-time, allowing mplayer to > access internal functionality that is not part of the public API. As far as I can tell none of that internal API usage remains, unless you enable certain special features like those old JPEG decoder cards (that actually don't compile anymore even against internal FFmpeg). > This > makes maintaining mplayer in Debian much more challenging, and > basically means that mplayer and libav always need to be updated in > lockstep. This has not been the case for some time. Well, at least not due to internal API usage. I believe there are a few "accessor" functions that MPlayer does not use when it should, but that's kind of a bug. > It is true that for quite some time I used my mplayer svn > commit privileges to make it possible to use libav instead of ffmpeg > as internal copy. I stopped doing this work, mainly because I felt > that these kind of work is not welcome inside mplayer. Well, "welcome" it is maybe from everyone's standpoint, but even some of the developers who welcome it least have added ifdefs to avoid breaking it even further. > Actually, I would be very interested in that, but not before > there was some mplayer release that stopped requiring an internal copy > of libav* I haven't tested the last release, and I don't know if only requiring these two headers I mentioned is good enough, but I would say it doesn't require an internal copy anymore. I even fixed configure so that if you have only those two files in ffmpeg/... it will default to compiling against a system FFmpeg. Making a new release is something that would be good to do anyway. _However_ none of this fixes the FFmpeg vs. Libav issues... > > Now, deb-multimedia.org provides it anyway so it won't leave people > > completely stranded, but I wonder if maybe there was a way to > > somehow point people there when they try something like > > "apt-get install mencoder"? > > I disagree that deb-multimedia.org is actually helping here. I would > rather recommend people that want to use mencoder on Debian to just > follow upstream's recommendation: compile it yourself, and statically > link against its internal copy of libavcodec. This is kind of messy on non-developer machines where it involves installing compilers an lots of -dev packages, plus not knowing which are needed (I suspect the debian packaging scripts inside the MPlayer source are thoroughly broken at this point, though I have not tried). > > I can see why you might have some concerns with that, but it would > > seem like a kind of user-friendly solution to me that doesn't > > r
Bug#732159: Should this package be removed?
On Sun, Feb 16, 2014 at 12:58 PM, Reimar Döffinger wrote: > On Sun, Feb 16, 2014 at 12:16:59PM -0500, Reinhard Tartler wrote: >> In lack of any *constructive* comments about this, I would say yes, >> let's remove them. > > What would constitute a constructive comment? Ideally "I am interested in making mplayer work against the libavcodec that we have in Debian, and this is my work in progress". > mplayer2 is unmaintained and as far as I can tell mpv has completely > different command-line syntax at the least (though I am not well > informed about either). It was my sincere hope that this would be a sufficient incentive and motivation to work on keeping mplayer/mencoder in debian. Unfortunately, it seems I was wrong. > Libav compatibility is not intentionally broken upstream, but it > is not tested in any systematic way either (possibly not at all). This is not the primary concern or reason in the context of whether or not to remove mplayer/mencoder from Debian. The reason is that there is nobody who is interested enough to work on making it suitable in Debian. Otherwise we wouldn't have to remove the package from Debian/testing (jessie). Personal remark here: mplayer was always problematic in Debian. Up to today, it is not possible to even compile mplayer without removing its internal copy of ffmpeg. This was only acceptable because I made sure that its internal copy is only used at build-time, allowing mplayer to access internal functionality that is not part of the public API. This makes maintaining mplayer in Debian much more challenging, and basically means that mplayer and libav always need to be updated in lockstep. It is true that for quite some time I used my mplayer svn commit privileges to make it possible to use libav instead of ffmpeg as internal copy. I stopped doing this work, mainly because I felt that these kind of work is not welcome inside mplayer. BTW, this is the main reason why I cannot support mplayer/mencoder anymore in Debian. Both mplayer2 and mpv work just fine without any internal copy of libavcodec and friends. BTW, as soon as someone appears that actually manages to maintain the mplayer/mencoder package, we can always re-introduce the package to Debian. Actually, I would be very interested in that, but not before there was some mplayer release that stopped requiring an internal copy of libav* - These days, I'm unable to cope with the amount of work that I had to invest to keep mplayer up-to-date in Debian so far, sorry. > Though I agree that there is little point in keeping the outdated > rc4 version. > But one more point: I am not sure all programs using mencoder > will have it as a dependency correctly. That would be very unfortunate. Please file bugs if you find packages that lack this dependency. > For example flvtool (exists only in stable though it seems) should > be using mencoder for some tasks but does not list it as a > dependency. We are discussing removal from unstable here, not stable. > Now, deb-multimedia.org provides it anyway so it won't leave people > completely stranded, but I wonder if maybe there was a way to > somehow point people there when they try something like > "apt-get install mencoder"? I disagree that deb-multimedia.org is actually helping here. I would rather recommend people that want to use mencoder on Debian to just follow upstream's recommendation: compile it yourself, and statically link against its internal copy of libavcodec. > I can see why you might have some concerns with that, but it would > seem like a kind of user-friendly solution to me that doesn't > require much effort from anyone... I don't share this understanding of "user-friendly". (cf. https://wiki.debian.org/DebianMultimedia/FAQ#A_recent_upgrade_of_ffmpeg.2Flibav-related_library_packages_.28e.g._libavcodec.29_has_broken_related_software_.28e.g._Totem.2C_MPlayer.2C_VLC.2C_Xine.29) -- 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#732159: Should this package be removed?
On Sun, Feb 16, 2014 at 12:16:59PM -0500, Reinhard Tartler wrote: > On Sun, Feb 16, 2014 at 11:21 AM, Moritz Mühlenhoff wrote: > > On Sat, Dec 14, 2013 at 05:07:36PM -0500, Reinhard Tartler wrote: > >> On Sat, Dec 14, 2013 at 4:28 PM, Moritz Muehlenhoff > >> wrote: > >> > Package: mplayer > >> > Severity: serious > >> > > >> > Should this package be removed? If so, please reassign to ftp.debian.org > >> > > >> > - Last upload nearly two years ago > >> > - FTBFS for a long time > >> > - Incompatible with current libav > >> > - Alternatives exist (mplayer2, mpv) > >> > >> I tend to agree, however please keep in mind that this also removes > >> mencoder, for which no drop-in alternatives exist atm: Currently, two > >> packages depend on mencoder, toonloop and photofilmstrip: > > > > Shall we go ahead with the removal now? > > > > toonloop has been removed from testing half a year ago and the last > > maintainer upload was two years ago and photofilmstrip is already > > removed from jessie since half a year. popcon is marginal for both. > > > > We can ask FTP masters to remove mplayer forcefully despite the > > remaining reverse deps. > > In lack of any *constructive* comments about this, I would say yes, > let's remove them. What would constitute a constructive comment? mplayer2 is unmaintained and as far as I can tell mpv has completely different command-line syntax at the least (though I am not well informed about either). Libav compatibility is not intentionally broken upstream, but it is not tested in any systematic way either (possibly not at all). Though I agree that there is little point in keeping the outdated rc4 version. But one more point: I am not sure all programs using mencoder will have it as a dependency correctly. For example flvtool (exists only in stable though it seems) should be using mencoder for some tasks but does not list it as a dependency. Now, deb-multimedia.org provides it anyway so it won't leave people completely stranded, but I wonder if maybe there was a way to somehow point people there when they try something like "apt-get install mencoder"? I can see why you might have some concerns with that, but it would seem like a kind of user-friendly solution to me that doesn't require much effort from anyone... ___ 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#732159: Should this package be removed?
On Sun, Feb 16, 2014 at 11:21 AM, Moritz Mühlenhoff wrote: > On Sat, Dec 14, 2013 at 05:07:36PM -0500, Reinhard Tartler wrote: >> On Sat, Dec 14, 2013 at 4:28 PM, Moritz Muehlenhoff wrote: >> > Package: mplayer >> > Severity: serious >> > >> > Should this package be removed? If so, please reassign to ftp.debian.org >> > >> > - Last upload nearly two years ago >> > - FTBFS for a long time >> > - Incompatible with current libav >> > - Alternatives exist (mplayer2, mpv) >> >> I tend to agree, however please keep in mind that this also removes >> mencoder, for which no drop-in alternatives exist atm: Currently, two >> packages depend on mencoder, toonloop and photofilmstrip: > > Shall we go ahead with the removal now? > > toonloop has been removed from testing half a year ago and the last > maintainer upload was two years ago and photofilmstrip is already > removed from jessie since half a year. popcon is marginal for both. > > We can ask FTP masters to remove mplayer forcefully despite the > remaining reverse deps. In lack of any *constructive* comments about this, I would say yes, let's remove them. Thanks for your work on this bug! -- 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#732159: Should this package be removed?
On Sat, Dec 14, 2013 at 05:07:36PM -0500, Reinhard Tartler wrote: > On Sat, Dec 14, 2013 at 4:28 PM, Moritz Muehlenhoff wrote: > > Package: mplayer > > Severity: serious > > > > Should this package be removed? If so, please reassign to ftp.debian.org > > > > - Last upload nearly two years ago > > - FTBFS for a long time > > - Incompatible with current libav > > - Alternatives exist (mplayer2, mpv) > > I tend to agree, however please keep in mind that this also removes > mencoder, for which no drop-in alternatives exist atm: Currently, two > packages depend on mencoder, toonloop and photofilmstrip: Shall we go ahead with the removal now? toonloop has been removed from testing half a year ago and the last maintainer upload was two years ago and photofilmstrip is already removed from jessie since half a year. popcon is marginal for both. We can ask FTP masters to remove mplayer forcefully despite the remaining reverse deps. Cheers, Moritz ___ 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#732159: Should this package be removed?
Hi , The option "-demuxer lavf" works ! Thanks a lot! Please close the bug report #731937. 2014/1/8 Xiangyu Liu > Hi , > > The option "-demuxer lavf" works ! Thanks a lot! > Please close the bug report #731937. > > By the way, When I met problem in #731937, I have read the manual of > mplayer2, but I did not get any help about A/V sync except '-autosync' > option. Is there any other documentation to display all of the switch > option of mplayer2 and their *detailed functions* ? > > > > > 2014/1/7 Diego Biurrun > >> On 29.12.2013 06:04, Xiangyu Liu wrote: >> >>> For some specific MKV files, mplayer2 has problem to sync A/V, but >>> mplayer works fine. I've filed a bug. >>> ( http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=731937 ) >>> >> >> MPlayer and MPlayer2 use different Matroska demuxers by default. Try >> passing both "-demuxer lavf" and "-demuxer mkv" as options while playing >> the offending file(s). I suspect that one or the other will make the >> problem go away. >> >> Diego >> > > ___ 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#732159: Should this package be removed?
On 29.12.2013 06:04, Xiangyu Liu wrote: For some specific MKV files, mplayer2 has problem to sync A/V, but mplayer works fine. I've filed a bug. ( http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=731937 ) MPlayer and MPlayer2 use different Matroska demuxers by default. Try passing both "-demuxer lavf" and "-demuxer mkv" as options while playing the offending file(s). I suspect that one or the other will make the problem go away. Diego ___ 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#732159: Should this package be removed?
Hi, For some specific MKV files, mplayer2 has problem to sync A/V, but mplayer works fine. I've filed a bug. ( http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=731937 ) If possible, please keep the mplayer in Debian. Gentoo has new upstream versions of Mplayer (1.1.1, and 1.2_pre20130729) that can be built against libav9. Would you mind merging those patches to Mplayer in Debian ? ( https://packages.gentoo.org/package/media-video/mplayer ) Thanks, Best Regards, Xiangyu LIU ___ 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#732159: Should this package be removed?
2013/12/15 Reimar Döffinger : > On 14.12.2013, at 23:53, John Paul Adrian Glaubitz > wrote: >> On 12/14/2013 11:07 PM, Reinhard Tartler wrote: >>> On Sat, Dec 14, 2013 at 4:28 PM, Moritz Muehlenhoff wrote: Package: mplayer Severity: serious Should this package be removed? If so, please reassign to ftp.debian.org - Last upload nearly two years ago - FTBFS for a long time - Incompatible with current libav - Alternatives exist (mplayer2, mpv) >> >> Well, to be honest, I think the problem is actually libav, not mplayer. >> Most users prefer the original ffmpeg over libav from my own experience. >> >> And there are new upstream releases of mplayer which are actually more >> frequent and active than mplayer2: >> >> - mplayer: current stable release 1.1.1, released May 6th, 2013 >> - mplayer2: current stable release 2.0, released: March 24th, 2011 >> >> Even the latest git commit for mplayer2 is older than the current >> stable release of mplayer. The latter seems much more active to me. >> >> So, what I'd rather like to see is that we get a proper ffmpeg >> back in Debian again which would also allow to update mplayer >> to the current upstream version. There is even an RFP for >> that [1]. But I guess this is not going to happen. >> >> I'm still a bit sad that the split among the ffmpeg people >> happened. >> >> Adrian >> >>> [1] http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=729203 > > I thought someone was working on it already, but I am happy to help out both > with getting a parallel install of FFmpeg working (via a rpath hack for > example, supported in FFmpeg configure but probably needs fixes to MPlayer's > configure to work) and to a limited degree also making MPlayer work with > Libav. How about introducing the ffmpeg shared libraries with libffmpeg prefix instead of libav prefix? This would rename the libraries, but since none of the forks shows interest in using different library names and users already refer to ffmpeg or libav versions it would cause just a little confusion. This way the libraries could coexist on the same system and we could avoid using the rpath hack. Cheers, Balint PS: I'm interested in the topic because I'm working on reviving the XBMC package but upstream prefers ffmpeg over libav. ___ 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#732159: Should this package be removed?
On Sat, Dec 14, 2013 at 11:53 PM, John Paul Adrian Glaubitz < glaub...@physik.fu-berlin.de> wrote: > Well, to be honest, I think the problem is actually libav, not mplayer. > Most users prefer the original ffmpeg over libav from my own experience. > Agreed Furthermore, I still do not understand why libav to take over the name ffmpeg in the archive -- Pau Garcia i Quiles http://www.elpauer.org (Due to my workload, I may need 10 days to answer) ___ 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#732159: Should this package be removed?
On 14.12.2013, at 23:53, John Paul Adrian Glaubitz wrote: > On 12/14/2013 11:07 PM, Reinhard Tartler wrote: >> On Sat, Dec 14, 2013 at 4:28 PM, Moritz Muehlenhoff wrote: >>> Package: mplayer >>> Severity: serious >>> >>> Should this package be removed? If so, please reassign to ftp.debian.org >>> >>> - Last upload nearly two years ago >>> - FTBFS for a long time >>> - Incompatible with current libav >>> - Alternatives exist (mplayer2, mpv) > > Well, to be honest, I think the problem is actually libav, not mplayer. > Most users prefer the original ffmpeg over libav from my own experience. > > And there are new upstream releases of mplayer which are actually more > frequent and active than mplayer2: > > - mplayer: current stable release 1.1.1, released May 6th, 2013 > - mplayer2: current stable release 2.0, released: March 24th, 2011 > > Even the latest git commit for mplayer2 is older than the current > stable release of mplayer. The latter seems much more active to me. > > So, what I'd rather like to see is that we get a proper ffmpeg > back in Debian again which would also allow to update mplayer > to the current upstream version. There is even an RFP for > that [1]. But I guess this is not going to happen. > > I'm still a bit sad that the split among the ffmpeg people > happened. > > Adrian > >> [1] http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=729203 I thought someone was working on it already, but I am happy to help out both with getting a parallel install of FFmpeg working (via a rpath hack for example, supported in FFmpeg configure but probably needs fixes to MPlayer's configure to work) and to a limited degree also making MPlayer work with Libav. However the latter would need a proper maintainer, and Libav misses quite a few features MPlayer needs, so it would be problematic and the result questionable IMHO. I am assuming nobody in Debian wants to compile MPlayer statically/against an "internal" copy of FFmpeg. Reimar ___ 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#732159: Should this package be removed?
On 12/14/2013 11:07 PM, Reinhard Tartler wrote: > On Sat, Dec 14, 2013 at 4:28 PM, Moritz Muehlenhoff wrote: >> Package: mplayer >> Severity: serious >> >> Should this package be removed? If so, please reassign to ftp.debian.org >> >> - Last upload nearly two years ago >> - FTBFS for a long time >> - Incompatible with current libav >> - Alternatives exist (mplayer2, mpv) Well, to be honest, I think the problem is actually libav, not mplayer. Most users prefer the original ffmpeg over libav from my own experience. And there are new upstream releases of mplayer which are actually more frequent and active than mplayer2: - mplayer: current stable release 1.1.1, released May 6th, 2013 - mplayer2: current stable release 2.0, released: March 24th, 2011 Even the latest git commit for mplayer2 is older than the current stable release of mplayer. The latter seems much more active to me. So, what I'd rather like to see is that we get a proper ffmpeg back in Debian again which would also allow to update mplayer to the current upstream version. There is even an RFP for that [1]. But I guess this is not going to happen. I'm still a bit sad that the split among the ffmpeg people happened. Adrian > [1] http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=729203 -- .''`. John Paul Adrian Glaubitz : :' : Debian Developer - glaub...@debian.org `. `' Freie Universitaet Berlin - glaub...@physik.fu-berlin.de `-GPG: 62FF 8A75 84E0 2956 9546 0006 7426 3B37 F5B5 F913 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#732159: Should this package be removed?
I've added debian-devel for further input, as I believe the consequences are a bit wider than expected. On Sat, Dec 14, 2013 at 4:28 PM, Moritz Muehlenhoff wrote: > Package: mplayer > Severity: serious > > Should this package be removed? If so, please reassign to ftp.debian.org > > - Last upload nearly two years ago > - FTBFS for a long time > - Incompatible with current libav > - Alternatives exist (mplayer2, mpv) I tend to agree, however please keep in mind that this also removes mencoder, for which no drop-in alternatives exist atm: Currently, two packages depend on mencoder, toonloop and photofilmstrip: Alexandre Quessy toonloop (U) Debian Multimedia Maintainers toonloop Gürkan Sengün photofilmstrip Jens Göpfert photofilmstrip (U) Jonas Smedegaard toonloop (U) Philipp Huebner photofilmstrip (U) If there is general consent that those packages are OK to remove as well, then so be it. Best 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#732159: Should this package be removed?
On Sat, Dec 14, 2013 at 9:28 PM, Moritz Muehlenhoff wrote: > Should this package be removed? If so, please reassign to ftp.debian.org > > - Last upload nearly two years ago > - FTBFS for a long time > - Incompatible with current libav > - Alternatives exist (mplayer2, mpv) I definitely agree. BTW I'd like to get an opinion from any of the Uploaders first. Cheers! -- Alessio Treglia | www.alessiotreglia.com Debian Developer | ales...@debian.org Ubuntu Core Developer| quadris...@ubuntu.com 0416 0004 A827 6E40 BB98 90FB E8A4 8AE5 311D 765A ___ 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#732159: Should this package be removed?
Package: mplayer Severity: serious Should this package be removed? If so, please reassign to ftp.debian.org - Last upload nearly two years ago - FTBFS for a long time - Incompatible with current libav - Alternatives exist (mplayer2, mpv) Cheers, Moritz ___ pkg-multimedia-maintainers mailing list pkg-multimedia-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pkg-multimedia-maintainers
