Josh Triplett wrote:
On Wed, Jun 27, 2012 at 04:11:48PM +0200, Per Olofsson wrote:
Thus, I think we should consider removing browser-plugin-gnash from the
desktop task (and the gnome metapackage).
I agree with that. I only suggested the inclusion of lightspark because
it made more sense
Le mercredi, 27 juin 2012 07.34:20, Christian PERRIER a écrit :
Thanks for the detailed answer.
Am I correct concluding that we can safely add
browser-plugin-lightspark to the desktop task?
My opinion as maintainer is that is is safe to do so _provided_ lightspark
gets more bugs filed;
2012-06-27 07:34, Christian PERRIER skrev:
Am I correct concluding that we can safely add
browser-plugin-lightspark to the desktop task?
IMHO, no.
Gnash plays YouTube videos better than Lightspark. With only Gnash
installed, YouTube works better. I belive YT is the most important Flash
site.
2012-06-27 13:12, Per Olofsson skrev:
I think we should consider removing Flash entirely, instead of shipping
a plugin that only works sometimes and stops superior HTML5 players from
appearing. I think Flash is a dying technology that will be replaced by
HTML5 in time. When wheezy has been
[Per Olofsson]
Gnash plays YouTube videos better than Lightspark. With only Gnash
installed, YouTube works better. I belive YT is the most important
Flash site. Having no Flash plugin forces HTML5 mode, and the HTML5
player works *much* better than either Gnash or
Lightspark. Unfortunately,
2012-06-27 13:36, Petter Reinholdtsen skrev:
Which browser are you using?
Chromium and Iceweasel.
Given that HTML5 browsers either support H.264 or (Ogg Theora and
WebM), and most of the video sites on the web only provide H.264, I
guess it is a matter of browser choice if HTML5 work better
[Per Olofsson]
It seemed to me that Firefox/Iceweasel was going to start supporting
H.264,[1] but perhaps I was mistaken.
I sure hope neither is going to support H.264 as part of HTML5
video.
Since Debian already includes H.264 support, surely it would be
better if Iceweasel could use it
2012-06-27 14:20, Petter Reinholdtsen skrev:
Since Debian already includes H.264 support, surely it would be
better if Iceweasel could use it directly instead of relying on a
Flash plugin.
I am not convinced it is better for Debian to help increase the
liability of people publishing video
2012-06-27 15:11, Lennart Sorensen skrev:
Debian has H.264 support in anything in main? I can't think of anything.
non-free sure, and deb-multimedia.org, but debian main?
http://packages.debian.org/sid/x264
http://packages.debian.org/sid/libavcodec53
--
Pelle
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email
On Wed, Jun 27, 2012 at 03:04:23PM +0200, Per Olofsson wrote:
This argument assumes that there are valid patents on H.264 held by the
MPEG-LA. According to http://www.debian.org/legal/patent, Debian will
not knowingly distribute software encumbered by patents. Since Debian is
distributing
[Per Olofsson]
This argument assumes that there are valid patents on H.264 held by
the MPEG-LA. According to http://www.debian.org/legal/patent,
Debian will not knowingly distribute software encumbered by
patents. Since Debian is distributing H.264 encoders and decoders,
that must mean that
2012-06-27 15:22, Petter Reinholdtsen skrev:
Actually, you are the one claiming Debian distribute programs
supporting H.264. I do not know if that is true.
I am quite certain that it is true. x264 is in Debian main, and its
description reads video encoder for the H.264/MPEG-4 AVC standard. The
On Wed, Jun 27, 2012 at 04:11:48PM +0200, Per Olofsson wrote:
Thus, I think we should consider removing browser-plugin-gnash from the
desktop task (and the gnome metapackage).
I agree with that. I only suggested the inclusion of lightspark because
it made more sense than *only* having gnash,
On Sun, Jun 24, 2012 at 12:27:21PM +0200, Petter Reinholdtsen wrote:
[Christian PERRIER]
So both can coexist peacefully?
I believe so. I have not checked it myself, but know there were talk about
having lightspark calling gnash when it found AVM1 flash files. Not sure
if both browsers
[ CC'ing Didier actual lightspark maintainer, not subscribed ]
On 06/26/2012 05:13 PM, Touko Korpela wrote:
On Sun, Jun 24, 2012 at 12:27:21PM +0200, Petter Reinholdtsen wrote:
[Christian PERRIER]
So both can coexist peacefully?
I believe so. I have not checked it myself, but know there
Quoting Gabriele Giacone (1o5g4...@gmail.com):
[ CC'ing Didier actual lightspark maintainer, not subscribed ]
On 06/26/2012 05:13 PM, Touko Korpela wrote:
On Sun, Jun 24, 2012 at 12:27:21PM +0200, Petter Reinholdtsen wrote:
[Christian PERRIER]
So both can coexist peacefully?
I
Package: tasksel
Version: 3.10
Severity: normal
Supporting modern Flash files requires browser-plugin-lightspark, not
just browser-plugin-gnash. Please consider depending on both.
- Josh Triplett
-- System Information:
Debian Release: wheezy/sid
APT prefers unstable
APT policy: (500,
Quoting Josh Triplett (j...@joshtriplett.org):
Package: tasksel
Version: 3.10
Severity: normal
Supporting modern Flash files requires browser-plugin-lightspark, not
just browser-plugin-gnash. Please consider depending on both.
So both can coexist peacefully?
CC'in Petter Reinholdtsen
[Christian PERRIER]
So both can coexist peacefully?
I believe so. I have not checked it myself, but know there were talk about
having lightspark calling gnash when it found AVM1 flash files. Not sure
if both browsers plugin should be installed, or only the lightspark one
and the gnash
19 matches
Mail list logo
