On Wed, Feb 26, 2014 at 04:49:09PM +0100, Moritz Mühlenhoff wrote:
On Wed, Feb 26, 2014 at 02:30:47AM +0100, Michael Niedermayer wrote:
Yes, it's the latter: I didn't badmouth ffmpeg in any way: it was said
that libav
fixed less Google fuzzer samples than libav; for which I added my
Hi Clint,
On 26.02.2014 02:39, Clint Adams wrote:
On Tue, Feb 25, 2014 at 11:30:25PM +0100, Andreas Cadhalpun wrote:
Ideally the security team should now evaluate which of the two are
better from a security point of view and based on this decide, which
one they would prefer to see in jessie.
Hi Michael,
On 26.02.2014 02:44, Michael Gilbert wrote:
On Tue, Feb 25, 2014 at 8:39 PM, Michael Niedermayer wrote:
Id like to volunteer to help with any future security issues in
FFmpeg packages in debian.
The best place to start is testing and (more preferably) patches for
the present
On 2014-02-26 04:56:02, Andreas Cadhalpun wrote:
Hi Clint,
On 26.02.2014 02:39, Clint Adams wrote:
On Tue, Feb 25, 2014 at 11:30:25PM +0100, Andreas Cadhalpun wrote:
Ideally the security team should now evaluate which of the two are
better from a security point of view and based on this
On Wed, Feb 26, 2014 at 02:30:47AM +0100, Michael Niedermayer wrote:
Yes, it's the latter: I didn't badmouth ffmpeg in any way: it was said that
libav
fixed less Google fuzzer samples than libav; for which I added my
observation that when
I looked at several CVE assignments for ffmpeg
On Tue, Feb 25, 2014 at 11:30:25PM +0100, Andreas Cadhalpun wrote:
But then the security team represented by Moritz stated that they
would not support both FFmpeg and libav, so they are the only ones
affected negatively by FFmpeg in stable. Thus I think it doesn't
make much sense to discuss
Hi Antoine,
On 26.02.2014 14:15, Antoine Beaupré wrote:
On 2014-02-26 04:56:02, Andreas Cadhalpun wrote:
At the moment I think Antoine is still reviewing my packaging before
sponsoring an upload.
This was a misunderstanding - I thought more work would be done on the
package first. :)
I
On Wed, Feb 26, 2014 at 01:39:23AM +, Clint Adams wrote:
Ideally someone should upload ffmpeg to unstable instead of
endlessly discussing it. I don't see anyone preventing this
yet.
Seconded. I felt that Moritz's last message (when it was the last
message) was fine - let's get it into
On Sun, Feb 23, 2014 at 11:36:36PM +0100, Andreas Cadhalpun wrote:
Hi Moritz,
On 23.02.2014 22:56, Moritz Mühlenhoff wrote:
I don't have the time nor the interest to discuss this at length, so
EOD from my side.
since you started this discussion by effectively preventing FFmpeg
from being
Hi Moritz,
On 25.02.2014 17:57, Moritz Mühlenhoff wrote:
On Sun, Feb 23, 2014 at 11:36:36PM +0100, Andreas Cadhalpun wrote:
Hi Moritz,
On 23.02.2014 22:56, Moritz Mühlenhoff wrote:
I don't have the time nor the interest to discuss this at length, so
EOD from my side.
since you started this
On Tue, Feb 25, 2014 at 06:23:20PM +0100, Andreas Cadhalpun wrote:
No, it means I don't have the time, nor nerve to discuss this. We're
after all busy to keep Debian secure and sick of maintainers who only
focus on their pet package and neglegt the overall maintainability
of the Debian
On 25.02.2014 22:18, Yves-Alexis Perez wrote:
On Tue, Feb 25, 2014 at 06:23:20PM +0100, Andreas Cadhalpun wrote:
No, it means I don't have the time, nor nerve to discuss this. We're
after all busy to keep Debian secure and sick of maintainers who only
focus on their pet package and neglegt the
On Tue, Feb 25, 2014 at 11:30:25PM +0100, Andreas Cadhalpun wrote:
On 25.02.2014 22:18, Yves-Alexis Perez wrote:
On Tue, Feb 25, 2014 at 06:23:20PM +0100, Andreas Cadhalpun wrote:
No, it means I don't have the time, nor nerve to discuss this. We're
after all busy to keep Debian secure and sick
On Tue, Feb 25, 2014 at 11:33:33PM +0100, Moritz Muehlenhoff wrote:
On Tue, Feb 25, 2014 at 11:30:25PM +0100, Andreas Cadhalpun wrote:
On 25.02.2014 22:18, Yves-Alexis Perez wrote:
On Tue, Feb 25, 2014 at 06:23:20PM +0100, Andreas Cadhalpun wrote:
No, it means I don't have the time, nor
On Tue, Feb 25, 2014 at 05:57:02PM +0100, Moritz Mühlenhoff wrote:
On Sun, Feb 23, 2014 at 11:36:36PM +0100, Andreas Cadhalpun wrote:
Hi Moritz,
On 23.02.2014 22:56, Moritz Mühlenhoff wrote:
I don't have the time nor the interest to discuss this at length, so
EOD from my side.
On Tue, Feb 25, 2014 at 11:30:25PM +0100, Andreas Cadhalpun wrote:
Ideally the security team should now evaluate which of the two are
better from a security point of view and based on this decide, which
one they would prefer to see in jessie.
But if they don't, someone else will have to make
On Tue, Feb 25, 2014 at 8:39 PM, Michael Niedermayer wrote:
The security team made it abundantly clear that we will only support
either solution. If you go ahead with the ITP we'll file an RC bug
against ffmpeg to prevent it's transition to testing. You can then
sort out how/whether ffmpeg
On Sat, Feb 22, 2014 at 08:18:20PM +0100, Andreas Cadhalpun wrote:
Adrian, do you agree that this is sane?
If the security team is not willing to support both, they can ask the TC
to decide which one to use, but this does not prevent an upload of FFmpeg.
I don't see why security would
On Sun, Feb 23, 2014 at 10:53:18AM +0100, Moritz Mühlenhoff wrote:
On Sat, Feb 22, 2014 at 08:18:20PM +0100, Andreas Cadhalpun wrote:
...
But should they decide that it will not be possible to support both
packages for security updates, your argumentation would clearly
favor ffmpeg over
[Adding the CCs again, I hope you don't mind.]
Hi Timothy,
thanks for your remarks and sorry for not responding sooner, I got
distracted...
On 22.02.2014 20:39, Timothy Gu wrote:
On Sat, Feb 22, 2014 at 11:18 AM, Andreas Cadhalpun
andreas.cadhal...@googlemail.com wrote:
Upstream thinks
On Sun, Feb 23, 2014 at 12:38:17PM +0100, Andreas Cadhalpun wrote:
...
On 23.02.2014 11:48, Adrian Bunk wrote:
...
E.g. except for the idea of removing this pretty popular package
in favour of a dead fork, I don't recall any solution proposed
for getting MPlayer compile again in unstable.
On Sun, Feb 23, 2014 at 12:48:34PM +0200, Adrian Bunk wrote:
On Sun, Feb 23, 2014 at 10:53:18AM +0100, Moritz Mühlenhoff wrote:
On Sat, Feb 22, 2014 at 08:18:20PM +0100, Andreas Cadhalpun wrote:
...
But should they decide that it will not be possible to support both
packages for security
Hi Moritz,
On 23.02.2014 22:56, Moritz Mühlenhoff wrote:
I don't have the time nor the interest to discuss this at length, so
EOD from my side.
since you started this discussion by effectively preventing FFmpeg from
being uploaded, I take it that you ending this discussion now means
FFmpeg
Hi all,
I have looked at the packaging provided by Antoine and it seems - no
offense intended - a little bit messy.
Thus I have started from scratch and packaged FFmpeg 2.1.3 [1] (see
attached debian.tar.xz).
I have taken care to avoid conflicts with libav as far as possible, but
the
On 2014-02-22 12:39:20, Andreas Cadhalpun wrote:
Hi all,
I have looked at the packaging provided by Antoine and it seems - no
offense intended - a little bit messy.
Hehe, none taken. To my defense, I did that in about an hour, using
Marillat's packages... :)
Thus I have started from
Hi Antoine,
On 22.02.2014 18:56, Antoine Beaupré wrote:
On 2014-02-22 12:39:20, Andreas Cadhalpun wrote:
Thus I have started from scratch and packaged FFmpeg 2.1.3 [1] (see
attached debian.tar.xz).
Awesome!
;)
I have taken care to avoid conflicts with libav as far as possible, but
the
On Sat, Feb 22, 2014 at 11:18 AM, Andreas Cadhalpun
andreas.cadhal...@googlemail.com wrote:
Hi Antoine,
On 22.02.2014 18:56, Antoine Beaupr=E9 wrote:
On 2014-02-22 12:39:20, Andreas Cadhalpun wrote:
The ffmpeg package does not provide qt-faststart to avoid a conflict
with libav-tools.
Hi,
[only replying with my lintian maintainer hat here, from the sec. point of
view it would take a more lengthy mail]
On Saturday 22 February 2014 18:39:20 Andreas Cadhalpun wrote:
[...]
* E: embedded-library: I don't understand this one:
Does it complain about libavfilter embedding
28 matches
Mail list logo
