Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: ffmpeg vs libav choice of default
On 14/02/15 19:41, Fabio Erculiani wrote: If only libav and ffmpeg developers would stop breaking their API on every release... Just break it once and for all. It's so sad that I still can't upgrade from libav-9 because of this. Feature request: could you stop breaking the API for a couple of years? Thanks. If you say that you have to, well, I won't believe you. Libav 10 and Libav 11 had no api removal for that reason and probably Libav 12 will see only few items deprecated since 2 years removed. lu
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: ffmpeg vs libav choice of default
If only libav and ffmpeg developers would stop breaking their API on every release... Just break it once and for all. It's so sad that I still can't upgrade from libav-9 because of this. Feature request: could you stop breaking the API for a couple of years? Thanks. If you say that you have to, well, I won't believe you.
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: ffmpeg vs libav choice of default
On 09/02/15 10:17, Alexis Ballier wrote: (nb: you can see that this precise one is mostly fixed already.) I hope it is completely fixed already =\ lu
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: ffmpeg vs libav choice of default
On Sun, 08 Feb 2015 23:34:57 +0100 Luca Barbato wrote: > Sadly the time I can spend doing opensource stuff can be compressed > from time to time and maybe is nicer develop interesting stuff such > as useful API and features than write tons of s:CODEC_ID:AV_CODEC_ID: > over countless packages. can't agree more; by people I really meant fresh blood; I had been doing such boring tasks for the past years and am also busy with other things these days; even ffmpeg integration is not in the shape it used to be. (nb: you can see that this precise one is mostly fixed already.) Alexis.
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: ffmpeg vs libav choice of default
On 08/02/15 17:13, Alexis Ballier wrote: What we need instead of such endless debate & happy bashing (been there, done that) is people doing the work. That's what will improve the distribution. I thought letting libav be the default would improve that; If nobody helps fixing the orphaned and near orphaned applications we distribute nothing good happens and sadly in the past months I had been busy with more rl tasks. unfortunately this is not the case today: libav ebuilds are good, tree-wide integration is not. I find it a bit sad and sarcastic that we're close to have ffmpeg-2.2 stable while libav-10 is not even unmasked: One big feature of the two versions is the h265/hevc decoder, and as I understood it, most of the work has been done on the libav side... libav-10 and libav-11 are the same api wise, sadly I had to wait for handbrake to provide a new release and I hadn't time to install and check all the near orphaned application that call direct the ffmpeg command. I had no problems with using libav-11 since it was released but I kept it masked while patching stuff. Sadly the time I can spend doing opensource stuff can be compressed from time to time and maybe is nicer develop interesting stuff such as useful API and features than write tons of s:CODEC_ID:AV_CODEC_ID: over countless packages. lu
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: ffmpeg vs libav choice of default
On Sun, 8 Feb 2015 12:19:18 + Ian Whyman wrote: > On 8 February 2015 at 03:20, Jason A. Donenfeld > wrote: > > The votes keep pouring in. Ffmpeg is the preference of Gentoo > > users, as well as the majority of Gentoo developers, and by a very > > relevant upstream author. > > I don't think a forum poll, or a poll of users for that matter is > great way to build a distribution, in fact it may be very worst way I > can think of. I wouldn't like to comment of the preferences of my > fellow developers, but I might suggest to put this to bed with a vote. A poll for which is default does make sense: if 90% of users were to use the non-default, there is no point of having such a default. Whether the forum is a good representing sample is another debate. What we need instead of such endless debate & happy bashing (been there, done that) is people doing the work. That's what will improve the distribution. I thought letting libav be the default would improve that; unfortunately this is not the case today: libav ebuilds are good, tree-wide integration is not. I find it a bit sad and sarcastic that we're close to have ffmpeg-2.2 stable while libav-10 is not even unmasked: One big feature of the two versions is the h265/hevc decoder, and as I understood it, most of the work has been done on the libav side... Alexis.
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: ffmpeg vs libav choice of default
El dom, 08-02-2015 a las 12:19 +, Ian Whyman escribió: [...] > So long as libav is effectively dictating the API then by defaulting > to ffmpeg we are just delaying the inevitable breakage htting the > tree. I know there are people who think we shouldn't break unstable, > but I personally prefer a faster moving model with an amount of > breakage. > I have no problem with making that breakage land the "testing" tree... but having bugs like this in stable doesn't make me think libav is a good default (at least for now): https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=474408 Regarding the "gstreamer preference", well, it's not exactly that: upstream supports either the internal libav lib, one concrete libav version and one concrete ffmpeg version per cycle. Once we patch it to support more libav/ffmpeg versions we are on our own (like it's the case now as, for example, you would need to run the development upstream version for libav-11, 1.4.x version for libav-10 and 1.2.x version for libav-9).
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: ffmpeg vs libav choice of default
On 8 February 2015 at 03:20, Jason A. Donenfeld wrote: > The votes keep pouring in. Ffmpeg is the preference of Gentoo users, as well > as the majority of Gentoo developers, and by a very relevant upstream > author. I don't think a forum poll, or a poll of users for that matter is great way to build a distribution, in fact it may be very worst way I can think of. I wouldn't like to comment of the preferences of my fellow developers, but I might suggest to put this to bed with a vote. With regards to packages both Gstreamer and Handbrake upstreams prefer libav, though again I don't think that is great way to pick. So long as libav is effectively dictating the API then by defaulting to ffmpeg we are just delaying the inevitable breakage htting the tree. I know there are people who think we shouldn't break unstable, but I personally prefer a faster moving model with an amount of breakage. -- Ian Whyman www.gentoo.org
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: ffmpeg vs libav choice of default
The votes keep pouring in. Ffmpeg is the preference of Gentoo users, as well as the majority of Gentoo developers, and by a very relevant upstream author.
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: ffmpeg vs libav choice of default
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Hiya, On 07/02/15 05:16, Ben de Groot wrote: > I discussed this beforehand with said developer on IRC. Ok, that wasn't clear from the commit message. > Do you think a news item to explain this situation and giving > explicit instructions for users who wish to stay with libav would > be useful? No, I think the coincidence of the timing was unfortunate, but it's done now, and if it had been done a month or so after the first news item, it wouldn't have needed any explanation, so probably best just to leave it now. Perhaps a forums article, just so the instructions are available somewhere, but I don't think it deserves a fully fledged news article. > No. Users can unmask the useflag and build mpv with libav if they > wish. You're quite right, the point I was trying to make was that unmasking a USE flag is a very uncommon event, and as such I think seen as riskier than simply unmasking a package. It doesn't stop people building the newer mpv, it just makes them jump through more hoops to follow the news article's guidance. If you're happy with that requirement for that package then there's no real problem... Mike 5:) -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v2.0 iKYEARECAGYFAlTWN7xfFIAALgAoaXNzdWVyLWZwckBub3RhdGlvbnMub3Bl bnBncC5maWZ0aGhvcnNlbWFuLm5ldEZGQjEyM0ZDRDBCRjcwREE1MzA0MjNBREJC QkFENkEyNkMyMDE1N0EACgkQu7rWomwgFXqTMQCgoAmuIE3YISgo0dEc1l/5DMT5 y+oAn2wLZG2Wds5Is5cLKbksrCTvjyq6 =NwzJ -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: ffmpeg vs libav choice of default
On 7 February 2015 at 10:08, Mike Auty wrote: > [...] I > was concerned that a warning which had been in place in package.mask > since September was removed by a different developer than the one who > put it in place, I discussed this beforehand with said developer on IRC. > and that a package was unmasked (while a USE flag was > masked) which then forced everyone who read the portage news article > and swapped mplayer to mpv based on the article, to then be told they > have to rebuild with ffmpeg after all, and potentially rebuild a lot > of other packages because of that. I was not aware of mpv upstream preference for ffmpeg when that news item was written, or I would have brought up that issue. You are right that the resulting situation is more confusing than it should be. Maybe I should have insisted on a news item, even tho maksbotan didn't think that was necessary. Do you think a news item to explain this situation and giving explicit instructions for users who wish to stay with libav would be useful? > The mask of the USE flag even > removed the possibility of building the newer mpv with libav No. Users can unmask the useflag and build mpv with libav if they wish. -- Cheers, Ben | yngwin Gentoo developer
[gentoo-dev] Re: ffmpeg vs libav choice of default
Chí-Thanh Christopher Nguyễn posted on Fri, 06 Feb 2015 12:57:35 +0100 as excerpted: > I tried to choose the options' wording carefully, in order to get as > much information as possible from a single poll. Thanks for your wisdom in wording (which, contrary to some others, I agreed with, because far too often I see polls that simply don't have a choice appropriately matching my nuanced preference, and this one goes to some lengths to address that and thus, with appropriate analysis, should provide more accurate data, at least for those who responded). And thanks for the wise analysis as well. Seems to well summarize things. =:^) -- Duncan - List replies preferred. No HTML msgs. "Every nonfree program has a lord, a master -- and if you use the program, he is your master." Richard Stallman
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: ffmpeg vs libav choice of default
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Hiya, On 06/02/15 08:48, Duncan wrote: > Daniel Campbell posted on Thu, 05 Feb 2015 22:55:05 -0800 as > excerpted: > >> As a user and prospective developer, why? Transparency is >> important to open communities like Gentoo's, and reading the >> discussions can give users and developers alike some context that >> they wouldn't normally get if they hadn't seen the >> discussion(s). > > (As a user myself...) I believe he's referring not to the technical > disagreements themselves, but to the practical effects on users of > unmasking, remasking, unmasking, changing USE flags, changing the > / meaning/ of USE flags, changing USE flag defaults... before a > final plan of action is settled on. Duncan was absolutely right, and I communicated myself poorly. I have no issue with them discussing the best course of action. I positively would like to get this situation resolved as quickly as possible! I was concerned that a warning which had been in place in package.mask since September was removed by a different developer than the one who put it in place, and that a package was unmasked (while a USE flag was masked) which then forced everyone who read the portage news article and swapped mplayer to mpv based on the article, to then be told they have to rebuild with ffmpeg after all, and potentially rebuild a lot of other packages because of that. The mask of the USE flag even removed the possibility of building the newer mpv with libav, even though it's actually possible (so users who'd unmasked >=libav-10, could no longer build mpv-0.7.x when the had previously). I don't care which way it gets sorted out, but having such direct effects on users, without agreement or even discussion of the action beforehand is what I'd like to avoid (and then poorly phrased as "airing in front of the users", for which I apologize)... Mike 5:) -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v2.0 iKYEARECAGYFAlTVc7tfFIAALgAoaXNzdWVyLWZwckBub3RhdGlvbnMub3Bl bnBncC5maWZ0aGhvcnNlbWFuLm5ldEZGQjEyM0ZDRDBCRjcwREE1MzA0MjNBREJC QkFENkEyNkMyMDE1N0EACgkQu7rWomwgFXqPrgCfdyve0LLT1eeMPTo8+sPaLs7s 4TYAn2joniuA4LOPbU03XRLBXoh7gWX/ =lSq2 -END PGP SIGNATURE-
[gentoo-dev] Re: ffmpeg vs libav choice of default
Daniel Campbell posted on Thu, 05 Feb 2015 22:55:05 -0800 as excerpted: > On 02/04/2015 04:43 AM, Mike Auty wrote: >> It's fine to have disagreements, but airing them in front of the users >> like this is not an ideal situation... > > As a user and prospective developer, why? Transparency is important to > open communities like Gentoo's, and reading the discussions can give > users and developers alike some context that they wouldn't normally get > if they hadn't seen the discussion(s). (As a user myself...) I believe he's referring not to the technical disagreements themselves, but to the practical effects on users of unmasking, remasking, unmasking, changing USE flags, changing the / meaning/ of USE flags, changing USE flag defaults... before a final plan of action is settled on. IOW, the problem isn't the disagreement or the openness of the discussion, it's that various changes are happening before there's a settled plan, causing far more disruption for the users in terms of having to "fix" USE flags and keywords and masks via package.* then they should be having to deal with, most of it simply due to premature action before a final action plan is agreed to that will (ideally) ultimately minimize required user changes and "fixes". Tho in the past list discussions (and I gather the IRC channels as well, tho I don't personally do IRC so what I know of that is second hand) did get vicious and personal at times, until enough objections (including from gentoo sponsors apparently) forced a toning down, and these days people get a warning when it starts getting personal, and can get a posting suspension "cool-down period" if it gets too bad. But I'm not aware of such mandatory cool-down timeouts being imposed for some time now, and even warnings are fewer these days, as the lists have become far more professional in tone and in general a more pleasant place to discuss things, even when there are disagreements, because everyone knows it /cannot/ be allowed to get personal, now. And I for one am glad of that. =:^) -- Duncan - List replies preferred. No HTML msgs. "Every nonfree program has a lord, a master -- and if you use the program, he is your master." Richard Stallman
