On Fri, Mar 16, 2012 at 3:23 AM, Chris Knadle chris.kna...@coredump.us wrote:
On Monday, March 05, 2012 10:42:50, Reinhard Tartler wrote:
...
Friendly discussion with the maintainer of debian-multimedia.org to
not replace libraries such as libavcodec and friends have failed
ultimatively (BTW,
On Fri, Mar 16, 2012 at 5:06 PM, Reinhard Tartler siret...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Mar 16, 2012 at 3:23 AM, Chris Knadle chris.kna...@coredump.us
wrote:
On Monday, March 05, 2012 10:42:50, Reinhard Tartler wrote:
...
Friendly discussion with the maintainer of debian-multimedia.org to
not
seems to me like he's trying to
work (at least some) with d.o AFAICS.
Another recent thread relating to d-m.o:
Andres Mejia, Mar 5 2012:
Fwd: Re: Unofficial repositories on 'debian' domains [4]
Reinhard Tartler Mar 5 2012 (interesting):
Unofficial repositories on 'debian' domains [5
On Monday, March 05, 2012 10:42:50, Reinhard Tartler wrote:
...
Friendly discussion with the maintainer of debian-multimedia.org to
not replace libraries such as libavcodec and friends have failed
ultimatively (BTW, that is part of the reason why we've ended up with
an epoch of '4', dmo uses
On Mon, Mar 05, 2012 at 08:40:33AM +0100, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
While we are at it, I also think we should provide an index of
*.debian.net entries on that splash page.
http://wiki.debian.org/DebianNetDomains is just too prone to outdateness
and incompleteness. The index can be
* Stefano Zacchiroli lea...@debian.org [2012-03-13 09:47:43 CET]:
Thus far, no objections have been raised on the above proposal. Also, it
has been pointed out that past privacy concerns were related to the way
in which the entries were published, rather than to the actual
opportunity of doing
On Tue, Mar 13, 2012 at 10:57:19AM +0100, Gerfried Fuchs wrote:
www.debian.net is currently an alias for www.debian.org - this needs to
get entangled
Do you mean dis-entangled? (Otherwise agree!)
and a page put there to tell people clearly that anything below debian.net is
not an official
OoO Pendant le temps de midi du samedi 10 mars 2012, vers 12:30, Eric
Valette eric.vale...@free.fr disait :
Yes acknowledged that vlc and mplayer are now up-to-date.
vlc 0.5.3 was released on April, 8 2003. Debian package on April, 14 2003.
vlc 0.8.6a was released on January, 4 2007.
When exactly was vlc not up-to-date on Debian?
As long as it is unable to play dvd or various codec that are non
supported given the option for compiling libav for example
-- eric
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble?
On Sat, Mar 10, 2012 at 11:44:50AM +0100, Eric Valette wrote:
On 10/03/2012 11:14, Thomas Goirand wrote:
Debian Squeeze has a very nice set of packages that will make
a good fit for this platform. What do you think will be lacking
exactly?
XBMC, up to date ffmpeg at least with some non-free
[CC Eric - drop all other CCs]
On 12-03-11 at 03:54pm, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
On Sat, Mar 10, 2012 at 11:44:50AM +0100, Eric Valette wrote:
On 10/03/2012 11:14, Thomas Goirand wrote:
Debian Squeeze has a very nice set of packages that will make a
good fit for this platform. What do you
While debian-multimedia.org has gained a reputation of providing
packages, which were desperately lacking in Debian,
IMO this repository has turned into a major source of trouble and
pissed users provoking flamewars in the recent past. There is still a
number of remaining multimedia-related
On 03/10/2012 05:07 PM, Eric Valette wrote:
The problem is that debian per se
1) is unusable for any serious multimedia usage.
1/ I don't agree.
2/ Please define serious.
what are the version of VLC, ffmpeg, xbmc provided by debian?
In where? Stable? SID? Backports? FYI, you can check
On 10/03/2012 11:14, Thomas Goirand wrote:
In where? Stable? SID? Backports? FYI, you can check all
of this easily by yourself using packages.debian.org. Or
are you trying to make the point that Debian has outdated
packages?
I ask you a question: what are the version of the packeges in debian
On Sat, 2012-03-10 at 11:44 +0100, Eric Valette wrote:
I ask you a question: what are the version of the packeges in debian
unstable and in debian-multimedia.org trying to be factual. I know the
answer, I just would like someone from debian to write it down ;-)
I know the version already
On 10/03/2012 11:44, Eric Valette wrote:
I know the version already yes. And yes debian is completely outdated.
To be fair, but catching up at least for vlc, mplayer...
Still no xbmc, handbrake, libdvbcsa tough and quite old ffmpeg
-- eric
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to
On 10/03/2012 12:03, Eric Valette wrote:
On 10/03/2012 11:44, Eric Valette wrote:
I know the version already yes. And yes debian is completely outdated.
To be fair, but catching up at least for vlc, mplayer...
Still no xbmc, handbrake, libdvbcsa tough and quite old ffmpeg
mythtv,
Yes acknowledged that vlc and mplayer are now up-to-date.
Libav vs ffmpeg could be per se part of the debate. We could also speak
about compilation options and induced feature/codec support
what about xbmc, mythv, tvheadend, avidemux?
-- eric
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to
On Sat, 10 Mar 2012 11:44:50 +0100, Eric Valette eric.vale...@free.fr wrote:
On 10/03/2012 11:14, Thomas Goirand wrote:
In where? Stable? SID? Backports? FYI, you can check all
of this easily by yourself using packages.debian.org. Or
are you trying to make the point that Debian has
On 10/03/2012 12:40, Philip Hands wrote:
Really?
Again, vlc or mplayer do not make a multi-media capable distribution.
take a look at yavdr, openelec, geexbox, ubuntu studio and the packages
they provide
Read
On 12-03-10 at 12:30pm, Eric Valette wrote:
Yes acknowledged that vlc and mplayer are now up-to-date.
Libav vs ffmpeg could be per se part of the debate. We could also
speak about compilation options and induced feature/codec support
what about xbmc, mythv, tvheadend, avidemux?
Well, you
On 12-03-10 at 01:34pm, Eric Valette wrote:
On 10/03/2012 12:40, Philip Hands wrote:
Really?
Again, vlc or mplayer do not make a multi-media capable distribution.
take a look at yavdr, openelec, geexbox, ubuntu studio and the
packages they provide
Read
take a look at yavdr, openelec, geexbox, ubuntu studio and the
packages they provide
Readhttp://thelinuxcauldron.wordpress.com/2009/04/14/the-list-the-top-5-media-center-programs-for-linux/
and see the one you have.
Ahh, so your definition of serious multimedia is media centers.
On 12-03-10 at 04:39pm, Eric Valette wrote:
take a look at yavdr, openelec, geexbox, ubuntu studio and the
packages they provide
Readhttp://thelinuxcauldron.wordpress.com/2009/04/14/the-list-the-top-5-media-center-programs-for-linux/
and see the one you have.
Ahh, so your
Eric Valette eric.vale...@free.fr writes:
Thanks for not copying me. Afraid I was going to answer?
This mailing list, like all sensibly-run mailing lists, does not munge
the ‘Reply-To’ field. If you have a conversation in a public forum, the
onus is on you to participate in the discussion in
On 2012-03-05 16:42:50 +0100, Reinhard Tartler wrote:
Friendly discussion with the maintainer of debian-multimedia.org to
not replace libraries such as libavcodec and friends have failed
ultimatively (BTW, that is part of the reason why we've ended up with
an epoch of '4', dmo uses epoch '5');
On 2012-03-08, Vincent Lefevre vinc...@vinc17.net wrote:
It's worse than that. Security support is non-existent, and users
don't know that. An example: [… non-free package …]
Well, non-free in Debian proper doesn't have security support neither. But
then I guess one could argue that users at
On 2012-03-08 12:35:53 +, Philipp Kern wrote:
On 2012-03-08, Vincent Lefevre vinc...@vinc17.net wrote:
It's worse than that. Security support is non-existent, and users
don't know that. An example: [… non-free package …]
Well, non-free in Debian proper doesn't have security support
On Tue, Mar 06, 2012 at 10:23:33AM +0900, Norbert Preining wrote:
On Di, 06 Mär 2012, Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
the Blends framework. I would most probably drop some file
/etc/apt/preferences.d/01-disable-dmo.pref
in multimedia-config metapackage (where all other metapackages
On 03/06/2012 03:55 PM, Paul Wise wrote:
On Tue, Mar 6, 2012 at 3:44 PM, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
Now, is anyone against publishing the list of debian.net entries and the
entry - registrant association (provided the above conditions are
met)?
That is already published in DNS:
On Tue, Mar 6, 2012 at 5:43 PM, Thomas Goirand wrote:
It's not *always* published.
Try with ipv6 or mozilla.debian.net for example.
Making this as a rule seems relevant and a good idea to me.
It'd be even better if we could publish a list instead of only
an individual if we want to (but
Le 06/03/2012 01:56, Jonas Smedegaard a écrit :
Debian now has a *changed* hard line against patent infringing software
- resulting in more codecs supported in official Debian packages.
Perhaps, it is time to look at each package in d-m.o and list all
that are now equals (or better ?) in term
On Di, 06 Mär 2012, Andreas Tille wrote:
I wonder what criterion of serios bug would apply here. Just for the
sake of interest because I do not intend to implement this personally.
Too lazy to search for it, but overriding a configuration of a
system admin is for sure not allowed. If it would
On 12-03-06 at 11:24am, Vincent Danjean wrote:
Le 06/03/2012 01:56, Jonas Smedegaard a écrit :
Debian now has a *changed* hard line against patent infringing
software - resulting in more codecs supported in official Debian
packages.
Perhaps, it is time to look at each package in d-m.o
Hey.
Stupid question... but even for those packages, which Debian provides
now itself (by the fine work of the pkg-multimedia-maintainers)... are
they build with all the options enabled?
I believe to remember that there were some cases where mp4 stuff was
disabled then...
I surely haven't had
On Mon, 5 Mar 2012 22:19:09 +0100
Stefano Zacchiroli z...@debian.org wrote:
On Mon, Mar 05, 2012 at 08:09:47PM +, Philipp Kern wrote:
The reason being what? We have ZIP password crackers in the
archive, too.
Cracking ZIP passwords doesn't fall under the auspices of DMCA or your
On Wed, 2012-03-07 at 10:35 +1100, Karl Goetz wrote:
On Mon, 5 Mar 2012 22:19:09 +0100
Stefano Zacchiroli z...@debian.org wrote:
On Mon, Mar 05, 2012 at 08:09:47PM +, Philipp Kern wrote:
The reason being what? We have ZIP password crackers in the
archive, too.
Cracking ZIP
On Mon, March 5, 2012 08:40, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
On Sun, Mar 04, 2012 at 10:59:39PM +, Ben Hutchings wrote:
Looking at the front page of http://www.debian-multimedia.org/ today,
I don't see a clear statement that it is unofficial.
I also find disturbing that the website seeks for
2012/3/5 Stefano Zacchiroli lea...@debian.org:
What we need, though, is probably to make it more clear to our users
what is the difference among *.debian.net and *.debian.org services. It
is something that developers know by folklore, but that I seriously
doubt most of our users know. For me,
On 03/05/2012 03:40 PM, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
But before getting there, the question is whether the existence of the
website (and its popularity) poses problem to Debian reputation and/or
to the activity of official Debian multimedia packaging. I think this is
a question for the Debian
Hi,
Thomas Goirand wrote:
On 03/05/2012 03:40 PM, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
But before getting there, the question is whether the existence of the
website (and its popularity) poses problem to Debian reputation and/or
to the activity of official Debian multimedia packaging. I think this is
a
Florian Reitmeir flor...@reitmeir.org writes:
to expect that any third-party package archive is stable enough to
survive an debian dist-upgrade is just brave.
It can be done, though, and it should be the norm. That it is not so,
that's unfortunate, and something we (both the Debian maintainers
On Mon, 2012-03-05 at 17:56, Thomas Goirand wrote:
On 03/05/2012 03:40 PM, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
But before getting there, the question is whether the existence of the
website (and its popularity) poses problem to Debian reputation and/or
to the activity of official Debian multimedia
I do think this website hurts Debian, and its user community.
Let me explain, it's based on my past *user* experience.
But I've seen multiple instances of this issue over the years, on both
desktop and server side.
You added debian-multimedia in a server system? If i were you i would start
On Mon, Mar 5, 2012 at 4:40 AM, Stefano Zacchiroli lea...@debian.org wrote:
What we need, though, is probably to make it more clear to our users
what is the difference among *.debian.net and *.debian.org services. It
is something that developers know by folklore, but that I seriously
doubt
On 03/05/2012 06:26 PM, Florian Reitmeir wrote:
Hi,
Thomas Goirand wrote:
On 03/05/2012 03:40 PM, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
But before getting there, the question is whether the existence of the
website (and its popularity) poses problem to Debian reputation and/or
to the activity of
On 03/05/2012 06:52 PM, Milan P. Stanic wrote:
I don't agree with you here.
For me d-m.o was (and still is) valuable resource.
Some codecs missing in Debian packages because of the policy (I don't
blame Debian for that) and in that case d-m.o is best option for me
because I don't want/have
On 03/05/2012 08:51 PM, Salvo Tomaselli wrote:
But I've seen multiple instances of this issue over the years, on both
desktop and server side.
You added debian-multimedia in a server system? If i were you i would start
by
blaming myself for the problems.
Not me, my customer, and
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Hi,
On 05.03.2012 14:31, Fernando Lemos wrote:
I believe people don't go to http://www.debian.net/ often, as it
redirects to http://www.debian.org/. If we come up with a splash
for debian.net, people that visit mentors.debian.net, for example,
On Mon, Mar 5, 2012 at 11:09 AM, Arno Töll deb...@toell.net wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Hi,
On 05.03.2012 14:31, Fernando Lemos wrote:
I believe people don't go to http://www.debian.net/ often, as it
redirects to http://www.debian.org/. If we come up with a splash
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Hi,
On 05.03.2012 15:17, Fernando Lemos wrote:
Please note nobody is comparing m.d.n to d.m.o. There are two
discussions going on in this thread.
I noted. That said, people still take debian.net domains in general
and mentors.d.n in particular as
On Mon, Mar 05, 2012 at 03:32:23PM +0100, Arno Töll wrote:
I noted. That said, people still take debian.net domains in general
and mentors.d.n in particular as an example how people (ab-)use Debian
trademarks among different non-affiliated projects despite of being
entirely orthogonal target
On Mon, Mar 05, 2012 at 09:49:18PM +0800, Thomas Goirand wrote:
On 03/05/2012 08:51 PM, Salvo Tomaselli wrote:
But I've seen multiple instances of this issue over the years, on both
desktop and server side.
You added debian-multimedia in a server system? If i were you i would start
by
On Mon, Mar 5, 2012 at 9:29 AM, Thijs Kinkhorst th...@debian.org wrote:
But before getting there, the question is whether the existence of the
website (and its popularity) poses problem to Debian reputation and/or
to the activity of official Debian multimedia packaging. I think this is
a
On Mon, Mar 5, 2012 at 11:52 AM, Milan P. Stanic m...@arvanta.net wrote:
For me d-m.o was (and still is) valuable resource.
Some codecs missing in Debian packages because of the policy (I don't
blame Debian for that) and in that case d-m.o is best option for me
because I don't want/have time
On Mon, Mar 5, 2012 at 11:45 PM, Reinhard Tartler wrote:
Out of curiousity, what codecs do you miss in the official debian packages?
The Voxware decoder is the one codec I've encountered that doesn't
work in Debian. AFAICT there is no free decoder for it and the Windows
DLL from w32-codecs is
On 12-03-05 at 04:32pm, Adam Borowski wrote:
On Mon, Mar 05, 2012 at 09:49:18PM +0800, Thomas Goirand wrote:
On 03/05/2012 08:51 PM, Salvo Tomaselli wrote:
But I've seen multiple instances of this issue over the years, on
both desktop and server side.
You added debian-multimedia in
On Mon, 2012-03-05 at 16:45, Reinhard Tartler wrote:
On Mon, Mar 5, 2012 at 11:52 AM, Milan P. Stanic m...@arvanta.net wrote:
For me d-m.o was (and still is) valuable resource.
Some codecs missing in Debian packages because of the policy (I don't
blame Debian for that) and in that case
On Mar 5, 2012 11:00 AM, Paul Wise p...@debian.org wrote:
On Mon, Mar 5, 2012 at 11:45 PM, Reinhard Tartler wrote:
Out of curiousity, what codecs do you miss in the official debian
packages?
The Voxware decoder is the one codec I've encountered that doesn't
work in Debian. AFAICT there is
On Mon, Mar 5, 2012 at 9:45 AM, Reinhard Tartler siret...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Mar 5, 2012 at 11:52 AM, Milan P. Stanic m...@arvanta.net wrote:
For me d-m.o was (and still is) valuable resource.
Some codecs missing in Debian packages because of the policy (I don't
blame Debian for that)
On Mon, Mar 5, 2012 at 6:32 PM, Matt Zagrabelny mzagr...@d.umn.edu wrote:
On Mon, Mar 5, 2012 at 9:45 AM, Reinhard Tartler siret...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Mar 5, 2012 at 11:52 AM, Milan P. Stanic m...@arvanta.net wrote:
For me d-m.o was (and still is) valuable resource.
Some codecs missing
Reinhard Tartler siret...@gmail.com writes:
the libdvdread maintainer removed that really handy script.
Not really related but it did have a security issue:
http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=554772
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a
On 2012-03-05, Reinhard Tartler siret...@gmail.com wrote:
This is not a codec but a software package that cracks an encryption
algorithm. It has been packaged for debian proper, uploaded and got
rejected by ftp-master. BTW, the reason did not involve patents,
AFAIUI.
The reason being what?
On Mon, Mar 5, 2012 at 11:55 AM, Reinhard Tartler siret...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Mar 5, 2012 at 6:32 PM, Matt Zagrabelny mzagr...@d.umn.edu wrote:
On Mon, Mar 5, 2012 at 9:45 AM, Reinhard Tartler siret...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Mar 5, 2012 at 11:52 AM, Milan P. Stanic m...@arvanta.net
On Mon, Mar 05, 2012 at 08:09:47PM +, Philipp Kern wrote:
The reason being what? We have ZIP password crackers in the archive,
too.
Cracking ZIP passwords doesn't fall under the auspices of DMCA or your
equivalent $county_specific_law (and there are quite a few around the
world,
On Mon, Mar 05, 2012 at 04:42:50PM +0100, Reinhard Tartler wrote:
In summary, I can only advise everyone against enabling that
repository on any machine.
If I would have time to become a pkg-multimedia member I would try to
establish installing multimedia applications via metapackages build be
* Stefano Zacchiroli [2012-03-05 08:40 +0100]:
On Sun, Mar 04, 2012 at 10:59:39PM +, Ben Hutchings wrote:
While we are at it, I also think we should provide an index of
*.debian.net entries on that splash page.
http://wiki.debian.org/DebianNetDomains is just too prone to outdateness
and
On 12-03-05 at 11:04pm, Andreas Tille wrote:
On Mon, Mar 05, 2012 at 04:42:50PM +0100, Reinhard Tartler wrote:
In summary, I can only advise everyone against enabling that
repository on any machine.
If I would have time to become a pkg-multimedia member I would try to
establish
On Tue, 6 Mar 2012, Jonas Smedegaard d...@jones.dk wrote:
In other words, if not for Christian Marillat's work, your customer
would either be unable to do this on Debian, or, assuming enough
technical knowledge, have to beat upstream packages into working.
...or use another source which
On 12-03-06 at 11:33am, Russell Coker wrote:
On Tue, 6 Mar 2012, Jonas Smedegaard d...@jones.dk wrote:
In other words, if not for Christian Marillat's work, your
customer would either be unable to do this on Debian, or, assuming
enough technical knowledge, have to beat upstream
On Di, 06 Mär 2012, Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
the Blends framework. I would most probably drop some file
/etc/apt/preferences.d/01-disable-dmo.pref
in multimedia-config metapackage (where all other metapackages usually
And I would file a serious bug against that. There is no
Reinhard Tartler siret...@gmail.com writes:
On Mon, Mar 5, 2012 at 11:52 AM, Milan P. Stanic m...@arvanta.net wrote:
For me d-m.o was (and still is) valuable resource.
Some codecs missing in Debian packages because of the policy (I don't
blame Debian for that) and in that case d-m.o is best
On Tue, Mar 6, 2012 at 1:13 AM, Andres Mejia wrote:
MDL should be supported by libmodplug, which gstreamer uses.
The symptoms I am seeing are that Rhythmbox says The MIME type of the
file could not be identified. I guess I need to file a bug against
file since file --mime-type returns
On Tue, Mar 6, 2012 at 12:45 PM, Miles Bader wrote:
Er ... MP3 encoding ?
[Is that available in debian-official now?]
lame is in squeeze-backports and later:
http://packages.debian.org/lame
--
bye,
pabs
http://wiki.debian.org/PaulWise
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to
On Tue, Mar 06, 2012 at 12:30:02AM +0100, Carsten Hey wrote:
In a non-public mail, Rhonda explained an argument against publishing
such automatically generated lists. A short summary is:
snip
An other argument against publishing the list is that this information
used to be non-public.
On Tue, Mar 6, 2012 at 3:44 PM, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
Now, is anyone against publishing the list of debian.net entries and the
entry - registrant association (provided the above conditions are
met)?
That is already published in DNS:
pabs@chianamo ~ $ dig -t txt mentors.debian.net | grep
establishing unofficial
repositories under 'debian' domains. Nothing too bureaucratic, just a
standard disclaimer that these are the responsiblity of the developer
that established the repository. Maybe also require redirecting bug
reports, if the repository isn't maintained by or which the blessing
adding
repositories. Once one had a look at debian.org, and heard about
third-party repositories, it becomes quite obvious when one encounters
an unofficial mirror.
Perhaps we need some kind of policy for DDs establishing unofficial
repositories under 'debian' domains. Nothing too bureaucratic, just
On Sun, Mar 04, 2012 at 10:59:39PM +, Ben Hutchings wrote:
Looking at the front page of http://www.debian-multimedia.org/ today,
I don't see a clear statement that it is unofficial.
Agreed.
I also find disturbing that the website seeks for donations without
making clear that donated money
79 matches
Mail list logo
