On Wed, Nov 01, 2006 at 12:24:24AM +0100, A Mennucc wrote:
Now I really need to hear the opinion of the xine and ffmpeg Debian
people (and also of gstreamer and any other package using ffmpeg) about [N]
xine is able to build against an out of tree ffmpeg. This is what the
current xine in etch
On Sat, Nov 04, 2006 at 12:31:26AM +0100, Aurélien GÉRÔME wrote:
On Fri, Nov 03, 2006 at 11:34:37PM +0100, Diego Biurrun wrote:
That benchmark was done on x86. But let's face it, it's the
architecture that counts. Mind that I am writing this from a PPC, which
is my main machine..
I
On Wed, Nov 01, 2006 at 12:05:46AM +0100, Moritz Muehlenhoff wrote:
A Mennucc wrote:
So I think that
[O] is not worth the effort: we ruin MPlayer (for sure) for hope of a
(not sure) benefit in security.
I don't buy the argument of a completely crippled MPlayer. E.g. the
libavcodec in
On Sun, Nov 05, 2006 at 11:52:48AM +0100, Diego Biurrun wrote:
On Sat, Nov 04, 2006 at 12:31:26AM +0100, Aurélien GÉRÔME wrote:
This is a false argument. Come one please, do not attempt to tell me
that you can decently play a H.264-encoded video on a non-GHz machine
even with SIMD
On Sun, Nov 05, 2006 at 02:58:25PM +0100, Aurélien GÉRÔME wrote:
On Sun, Nov 05, 2006 at 01:30:08PM +0100, Diego Biurrun wrote:
On Sun, Nov 05, 2006 at 12:33:07PM +0100, Aurélien GÉRÔME wrote:
It just happens that I have a lot of H.264-encoded videos which
will *not* run adequately on the
On Sun, Nov 05, 2006 at 03:23:31PM +0100, Diego Biurrun wrote:
Sorry if I was sounding aggressive, this was not my intention.
I apologise too if you felt hurt by me sounding like you were lying.
Anyway, the confusion seems to have been cleared - good.
Sure. :)
Cheers,
--
.''`. Aurélien
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Reinhard Tartler ha scritto:
xine is able to build against an out of tree ffmpeg. This is what the
current xine in etch is doing.
(I was aware of this; I hope I made it clear in previous emails )
So far, I'm not aware of any regressions
yet. I
[Executive summary: This discussion is about mplayer using an embedded
copy of libavcodec instead of using the shared one from Debian]
On Wed, Nov 01, 2006 at 12:24:24AM +0100, A Mennucc wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
BTW: I have been assuming that Moritz is reporting
A Mennucc [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
So far, I'm not aware of any regressions
yet. I am aware that an updated ffmpeg could introduce regression.
Therefore I rely that Sam will bump the SONAME of the libraries when he
updates an incompatible version of ffmpeg in debian.
(disclaimer: I am not
On Tue, Oct 31, 2006 at 10:43:17PM +0100, Aurélien GÉRÔME wrote:
On Tue, Oct 31, 2006 at 07:46:01PM +0100, Diego Biurrun wrote:
Removing the embedded copies of FFmpeg libraries from MPlayer is a bad
idea.
For the workload on the security team and the overall quality of Debian
(a single
On Fri, Nov 03, 2006 at 11:34:37PM +0100, Diego Biurrun wrote:
That benchmark was done on x86. But let's face it, it's the
architecture that counts. Mind that I am writing this from a PPC, which
is my main machine..
I disagree, amd64 would be the architecture which counts and amd64
has
On Sun, Oct 29, 2006 at 12:53:37AM +0200, Moritz Muehlenhoff wrote:
On Sat, Oct 28, 2006 at 01:08:09PM -0400, Joey Hess wrote:
Moritz Muehlenhoff wrote:
The testing security team tracks probably hundreds of possibly security
relevant code copies in data/embedded-code-copies in their
Hi Diego,
On Tue, Oct 31, 2006 at 07:46:01PM +0100, Diego Biurrun wrote:
Removing the embedded copies of FFmpeg libraries from MPlayer is a bad
idea.
For the workload on the security team and the overall quality of Debian
(a single source package for whatever produced binary packages),
I
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
hi
I would like to add my 2¢ (although Dario's email pretty much says it all)
Here are 3 possible scenarios:
[N] The safest way to linking MPlayer with dynamical FFmpeg would be :
each time there is a MPlayer release, Diego provides us with the
A Mennucc wrote:
The overhead [O] may simply be not worth the (supposed) future benefit
for security.
It's not theoretical, but a genuine problem that affects us here and
today. We've had the whole mess for CVE-2005-4048, we're currently
encountering it with CVE-2006-4799/CVE-2006-4800 and
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
BTW: I have been assuming that Moritz is reporting the consensus of the
whole security team , and not only his personal opinion... is it so?
whereas Joey reported the opinion of the release people (that was not
opposite to [A])
I personally may
Processing commands for [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
severity 395252 serious
Bug#395252: Please depend on ffmpeg binary packages
Severity set to `serious' from `important'
thanks
Stopping processing here.
Please contact me if you need assistance.
Debian bug tracking system administrator
Moritz Muehlenhoff wrote:
severity 395252 serious
thanks
The testing security team tracks probably hundreds of possibly security
relevant code copies in data/embedded-code-copies in their svn repo. As
long as the security teams know about code copies, they can deal with
updates due to
On Sat, Oct 28, 2006 at 01:08:09PM -0400, Joey Hess wrote:
Moritz Muehlenhoff wrote:
severity 395252 serious
thanks
The testing security team tracks probably hundreds of possibly security
relevant code copies in data/embedded-code-copies in their svn repo. As
long as the security
severity 395252 important
thanks
The testing security team tracks probably hundreds of possibly security
relevant code copies in data/embedded-code-copies in their svn repo. As
long as the security teams know about code copies, they can deal with
updates due to them. Getting rid of embedded code
20 matches
Mail list logo
