Re: Helping with Maintenance of Packages in Debian
Am 28.04.2012 03:18, schrieb Hans-Christoph Steiner: We do not disagree at all on this point. I'm not saying that we should just upload ffmpeg as is, obviously it would be stupid to upload ffmpeg if it broke things. But we should welcome anyone who wants to do the work to make it possible to install libav and ffmpeg at the same time, or any other reasonable solution. Please do not forget that Andres' statement (that it's a bad idea to upload ffmpeg packages to Debian) was addressed at Mr. d-m-o, who has not yet shown the faintest interest to make his packages co-installable with ours but instead raises epochs to give his packages precedence whenever possible. - Fabian ___ 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: Helping with Maintenance of Packages in Debian
On 12-04-30 at 09:56am, Fabian Greffrath wrote: Am 28.04.2012 03:18, schrieb Hans-Christoph Steiner: We do not disagree at all on this point. I'm not saying that we should just upload ffmpeg as is, obviously it would be stupid to upload ffmpeg if it broke things. But we should welcome anyone who wants to do the work to make it possible to install libav and ffmpeg at the same time, or any other reasonable solution. Please do not forget that Andres' statement (that it's a bad idea to upload ffmpeg packages to Debian) was addressed at Mr. d-m-o, who has not yet shown the faintest interest to make his packages co-installable with ours but instead raises epochs to give his packages precedence whenever possible. I think noone is forgetting that, Fabian. I agree with Hans-Christoph that we should - in principle, even if unlikely to lead anywhere - be open to having both libraries in Debian. We should certainly very seriously warn anyone showing interest, that it is in no way an easy task: there is sane reasoning behind our chosing to so far only maintain one of them, and also sane reasoning to which of them we've chosen. In the past I have followed the kernel team and occasionally someone suggests to add a new kernel flavor - e.g. with realtime improvements, and there is a big difference between receiving the response no - go read the archive of this list to figure out why! and warning - this has been discussed many times and the burden is on you to demonstrate relevancy and sense of your approach!. Result in both cases is most likely the same, but the atmosphere caused by those two kinds of responses are _very_ different. - 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: 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
Re: Helping with Maintenance of Packages in Debian
On Fri, Apr 27, 2012 at 9:18 PM, Hans-Christoph Steiner h...@at.or.at wrote: On Apr 27, 2012, at 7:21 AM, Fabian Greffrath wrote: Am 26.04.2012 18:18, schrieb Hans-Christoph Steiner: When I read statements like Uploading ffmpeg would be a bad idea, it seems to me that the Debian-multimedia team has taken sides on the ffmpeg-libav fork dispute. That is not a position that a Debian team should take. Both ffmpeg and libav remain valuable free software that people want to use. And if someone is willing to do the work, Debian and Debian Multimedia should welcome both ffmpeg and libav. I disagree and second Andres' statement that uploading ffmpeg into Debian *now* in its current state is a bad idea. This is not because ffmpeg is bad per se - it isn't - it's just that we decided to go the libav route. This switch is not irrevocable, but so far no general problems have occured with libav and I think it fits better to Debian's release model. There is simply no pressing reason to switch back. We do not disagree at all on this point. I'm not saying that we should just upload ffmpeg as is, obviously it would be stupid to upload ffmpeg if it broke things. But we should welcome anyone who wants to do the work to make it possible to install libav and ffmpeg at the same time, or any other reasonable solution. And since this is a very political issue, we do need to speak carefully and clearly. That's why I object to the statement Uploading ffmpeg would be a bad idea. It is very broad, and wrong from some legitimate Debian-specific points of view. To install libav and ffmpeg at the same time, you have to either make them ABI compatible or have the libraries, headers, programs, and anything else that conflicts renamed. I am for this only if you work with (or anyone works with) the two upstreams. I am against this if it's to remain Debian-specific changes. I rather not resort to forking both projects, plus I don't want another situation similar to the SSL/SSH keys issues from the past [1]. Furthermore, currently libav and ffmpeg share the same library name space without being binary compatible - they are just not drop-in replacements for each other. This is also the reason for most of the bug reports we receive from users, who mixed up Debian packages built against libav with ffmpeg libraries from d-m.o. From what I know, this really seems to me a question for libav itself. IMHO, it is a version of the code with a new name, so that seems that the burden falls on libav to do it. And for the record, I have zero interest in getting involved in the politics, and I don't even want to know what happened to cause the libav fork. I am just offering a Debian user's perspective on two pieces of valuable software that have some technical conflicts. Renaming of anything is up to the upstream projects, not Debian. If we would re-introduce ffmpeg into Debian now, alongside libav, we'd have two choices. Either we get ffmpeg and libav binary-compatible and sustain this compatibility for all subsequent releases. Or we can live with the incompatibility, but then we sould have to rename the libraries of one of the projects and have to build each and every depending package twice, once against libav and once against ffmpeg - with appropriate package dependency declarations and migration plans. Do you think any of these alternatives is worth the effort? I don't! I'm specifically interested in the ffmpeg command line util, I don't really need all the libraries. That wouldn't be hard to package. As for libraries, how about putting the ffmpeg versions into /usr/include/ffmpeg and /usr/lib/ffmpeg? Then if someone wants to build against them, they can add -I/usr/include/ffmpeg and -L/usr/lib/ffmpeg. For most projects that use the libav* libraries, there probably wouldn't be any difference between using the ffmpeg or libav versions, so it would be silly to make all packages for both. libav already builds and provides the ffmpeg package. This is done despite it being removed in libav upstream. It's only provided in Debian for backward compatibility and to ease migration to avconv. The plan is to remove ffmpeg after the next release is out. As for the suggestions in library and header placements for ffmpeg, you're essentially asking for ffmpeg to be renamed. In this case, like I said already, you need to work with upstream. And of course, I'm not telling anyone that they should do the work here. I am saying we should welcome anyone who wants to do it. Oops, I guess I already said that ;) .hc All mankind is of one author, and is one volume; when one man dies, one chapter is not torn out of the book, but translated into a better language; and every chapter must be so translated -John Donne 1.
Re: Helping with Maintenance of Packages in Debian
On Apr 28, 2012, at 3:25 AM, Reinhard Tartler wrote: On Sat, Apr 28, 2012 at 3:08 AM, Hans-Christoph Steiner h...@at.or.at wrote: On Apr 26, 2012, at 3:31 PM, Reinhard Tartler wrote: On Thu, Apr 26, 2012 at 6:18 PM, Hans-Christoph Steiner h...@at.or.at wrote: ffmpeg provides many things that libav does not. For example, I have written an audio redaction plugin for ffmpeg. Such a plugin is not possible in libav. Please elaborate. What makes this impossible. Maybe you can point to your plugin? From what I can tell, they improved the audio plugin API in ffmpeg 0.9 quite a bit. When I was programming my plugin, I looked at both libav and ffmpeg. It wasn't until I looked at ffmpeg 0.9 that it seemed feasible. I attached my plugin source code: Oh, you're talking about libavfilter. Well, so far there is not a single application in debian that uses it, so it clearly wasn't a priority for me. It is true that lavfi has more functionality in ffmpeg, espc. since stefano has implemented his audio filtering work only after the split. On the libav side, I'd suggest talking to anton about this. He is very open and helpful, so why don't you try to catch him on irc, show him the plugin source code and see if he can port it to libav's libavfilter? There is indeed at least one application that does use libavfilter, and that is the ffmpeg command line tool. I think that's how most people use the functions in libavfilter. There are going to be differences between ffmpeg and there are going to solid reasons to use one or the other. So it seems futile to me to ask the devs to make them the same thing when the devs just split up over that very issue. I should add, since this came up in the discussion related to debian-multimedia.org, that this discussion about ffmpeg and libav should not be taken to mean that I am arguing against the proposals related to debian-multimedia.org. I have also been burned by debian-multimedia.org package conflicts, and at the same time I think that the debian-multimedia.org packages are a valuable resource. I think it is a good idea to make debian-multimedia.org more distinct from Debian itself, and also, it is a good idea to try to get as much of the debian-multimedia.org packages into Debian as possible. So I support the DPL's statement on that specific topic. .hc [T]he greatest purveyor of violence in the world today [is] my own government. - Martin Luther King, Jr. ___ 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: Helping with Maintenance of Packages in Debian
On Sat, Apr 28, 2012 at 9:32 PM, Hans-Christoph Steiner h...@at.or.at wrote: On Apr 28, 2012, at 3:25 AM, Reinhard Tartler wrote: On Sat, Apr 28, 2012 at 3:08 AM, Hans-Christoph Steiner h...@at.or.at wrote: On Apr 26, 2012, at 3:31 PM, Reinhard Tartler wrote: On Thu, Apr 26, 2012 at 6:18 PM, Hans-Christoph Steiner h...@at.or.at wrote: ffmpeg provides many things that libav does not. For example, I have written an audio redaction plugin for ffmpeg. Such a plugin is not possible in libav. Please elaborate. What makes this impossible. Maybe you can point to your plugin? From what I can tell, they improved the audio plugin API in ffmpeg 0.9 quite a bit. When I was programming my plugin, I looked at both libav and ffmpeg. It wasn't until I looked at ffmpeg 0.9 that it seemed feasible. I attached my plugin source code: Oh, you're talking about libavfilter. Well, so far there is not a single application in debian that uses it, so it clearly wasn't a priority for me. It is true that lavfi has more functionality in ffmpeg, espc. since stefano has implemented his audio filtering work only after the split. On the libav side, I'd suggest talking to anton about this. He is very open and helpful, so why don't you try to catch him on irc, show him the plugin source code and see if he can port it to libav's libavfilter? Ahem, XBMC uses libavfilter. XBMC would like to have buffersink filter merged into libav. We would also like all the other new changes in libavfilter merged into libav as well (wherever possible). See [1] on what it's like to support both libav and ffmpeg. I already mentioned this in #libav-devel and was told Anton is working on it. Not trolling here, just saying. There is indeed at least one application that does use libavfilter, and that is the ffmpeg command line tool. I think that's how most people use the functions in libavfilter. There are going to be differences between ffmpeg and there are going to solid reasons to use one or the other. So it seems futile to me to ask the devs to make them the same thing when the devs just split up over that very issue. I should add, since this came up in the discussion related to debian-multimedia.org, that this discussion about ffmpeg and libav should not be taken to mean that I am arguing against the proposals related to debian-multimedia.org. I have also been burned by debian-multimedia.org package conflicts, and at the same time I think that the debian-multimedia.org packages are a valuable resource. I think it is a good idea to make debian-multimedia.org more distinct from Debian itself, and also, it is a good idea to try to get as much of the debian-multimedia.org packages into Debian as possible. So I support the DPL's statement on that specific topic. .hc [T]he greatest purveyor of violence in the world today [is] my own government. - Martin Luther King, Jr. ___ pkg-multimedia-maintainers mailing list pkg-multimedia-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pkg-multimedia-maintainers 1. https://github.com/xbmc/xbmc/pull/629/files -- ~ Andres ___ 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: Helping with Maintenance of Packages in Debian
Am 26.04.2012 18:18, schrieb Hans-Christoph Steiner: When I read statements like Uploading ffmpeg would be a bad idea, it seems to me that the Debian-multimedia team has taken sides on the ffmpeg-libav fork dispute. That is not a position that a Debian team should take. Both ffmpeg and libav remain valuable free software that people want to use. And if someone is willing to do the work, Debian and Debian Multimedia should welcome both ffmpeg and libav. I disagree and second Andres' statement that uploading ffmpeg into Debian *now* in its current state is a bad idea. This is not because ffmpeg is bad per se - it isn't - it's just that we decided to go the libav route. This switch is not irrevocable, but so far no general problems have occured with libav and I think it fits better to Debian's release model. There is simply no pressing reason to switch back. Furthermore, currently libav and ffmpeg share the same library name space without being binary compatible - they are just not drop-in replacements for each other. This is also the reason for most of the bug reports we receive from users, who mixed up Debian packages built against libav with ffmpeg libraries from d-m.o. If we would re-introduce ffmpeg into Debian now, alongside libav, we'd have two choices. Either we get ffmpeg and libav binary-compatible and sustain this compatibility for all subsequent releases. Or we can live with the incompatibility, but then we sould have to rename the libraries of one of the projects and have to build each and every depending package twice, once against libav and once against ffmpeg - with appropriate package dependency declarations and migration plans. Do you think any of these alternatives is worth the effort? I don't! - Fabian ___ 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: Helping with Maintenance of Packages in Debian
On Apr 26, 2012, at 3:31 PM, Reinhard Tartler wrote: On Thu, Apr 26, 2012 at 6:18 PM, Hans-Christoph Steiner h...@at.or.at wrote: ffmpeg provides many things that libav does not. For example, I have written an audio redaction plugin for ffmpeg. Such a plugin is not possible in libav. Please elaborate. What makes this impossible. Maybe you can point to your plugin? From what I can tell, they improved the audio plugin API in ffmpeg 0.9 quite a bit. When I was programming my plugin, I looked at both libav and ffmpeg. It wasn't until I looked at ffmpeg 0.9 that it seemed feasible. I attached my plugin source code: af_aredact.c Description: Binary data .hc “We must become the change we want to see. - Mahatma Gandhi ___ 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: Helping with Maintenance of Packages in Debian
On Apr 27, 2012, at 7:21 AM, Fabian Greffrath wrote: Am 26.04.2012 18:18, schrieb Hans-Christoph Steiner: When I read statements like Uploading ffmpeg would be a bad idea, it seems to me that the Debian-multimedia team has taken sides on the ffmpeg-libav fork dispute. That is not a position that a Debian team should take. Both ffmpeg and libav remain valuable free software that people want to use. And if someone is willing to do the work, Debian and Debian Multimedia should welcome both ffmpeg and libav. I disagree and second Andres' statement that uploading ffmpeg into Debian *now* in its current state is a bad idea. This is not because ffmpeg is bad per se - it isn't - it's just that we decided to go the libav route. This switch is not irrevocable, but so far no general problems have occured with libav and I think it fits better to Debian's release model. There is simply no pressing reason to switch back. We do not disagree at all on this point. I'm not saying that we should just upload ffmpeg as is, obviously it would be stupid to upload ffmpeg if it broke things. But we should welcome anyone who wants to do the work to make it possible to install libav and ffmpeg at the same time, or any other reasonable solution. And since this is a very political issue, we do need to speak carefully and clearly. That's why I object to the statement Uploading ffmpeg would be a bad idea. It is very broad, and wrong from some legitimate Debian-specific points of view. Furthermore, currently libav and ffmpeg share the same library name space without being binary compatible - they are just not drop-in replacements for each other. This is also the reason for most of the bug reports we receive from users, who mixed up Debian packages built against libav with ffmpeg libraries from d-m.o. From what I know, this really seems to me a question for libav itself. IMHO, it is a version of the code with a new name, so that seems that the burden falls on libav to do it. And for the record, I have zero interest in getting involved in the politics, and I don't even want to know what happened to cause the libav fork. I am just offering a Debian user's perspective on two pieces of valuable software that have some technical conflicts. If we would re-introduce ffmpeg into Debian now, alongside libav, we'd have two choices. Either we get ffmpeg and libav binary-compatible and sustain this compatibility for all subsequent releases. Or we can live with the incompatibility, but then we sould have to rename the libraries of one of the projects and have to build each and every depending package twice, once against libav and once against ffmpeg - with appropriate package dependency declarations and migration plans. Do you think any of these alternatives is worth the effort? I don't! I'm specifically interested in the ffmpeg command line util, I don't really need all the libraries. That wouldn't be hard to package. As for libraries, how about putting the ffmpeg versions into /usr/include/ffmpeg and /usr/lib/ffmpeg? Then if someone wants to build against them, they can add -I/usr/include/ffmpeg and -L/usr/lib/ffmpeg. For most projects that use the libav* libraries, there probably wouldn't be any difference between using the ffmpeg or libav versions, so it would be silly to make all packages for both. And of course, I'm not telling anyone that they should do the work here. I am saying we should welcome anyone who wants to do it. Oops, I guess I already said that ;) .hc All mankind is of one author, and is one volume; when one man dies, one chapter is not torn out of the book, but translated into a better language; and every chapter must be so translated -John Donne ___ 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: Helping with Maintenance of Packages in Debian
On Thu, Apr 26, 2012 at 6:18 PM, Hans-Christoph Steiner h...@at.or.at wrote: ffmpeg provides many things that libav does not. For example, I have written an audio redaction plugin for ffmpeg. Such a plugin is not possible in libav. Please elaborate. What makes this impossible. Maybe you can point to your plugin? -- 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
Re: Helping with Maintenance of Packages in Debian
On Mar 28, 2012 2:14 AM, Christian Marillat maril...@free.fr wrote: Andres Mejia amejia...@gmail.com writes: Hi Christian, So I'll ask one more time and if the answer is no (or you don't respond), I won't bother you anymore. For the packages in DMO that can now be uploaded to Debian, will you be willing to help upload and maintain those packages in Debian? I can upload ffmpeg in Debian ? Christian Uploading ffmpeg would be a bad idea. Aside from the package name conflicts, libav and ffmpeg are incompatible with each other. Trying to keep them abi/api compatible would be a lot of work, more than what I have time for at least. If you want to upload ffmpeg and still have them compatible, feel free to submit your patches to libav/ffmpeg. Another alternative is to have the libraries renamed, of which case you will still need to submit patches upstream. ~ Andres ___ pkg-multimedia-maintainers mailing list pkg-multimedia-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pkg-multimedia-maintainers
