Re: Duplicate Packages from Debian archive in DMO

On Wed, Mar 21, 2012 at 8:42 PM, Andres Mejia wrote: > On Wed, Mar 21, 2012 at 7:11 PM, Stuart Prescott > wrote: >> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- >> Hash: SHA1 >> >> Hi all, >> >> Just to put some real data on packages that are in both Debian and >> debian-multimedia.org I extracted the appe

crtmpserver_1.0~dfsg-1_amd64.changes ACCEPTED into unstable

Accepted: crtmpserver-apps_1.0~dfsg-1_amd64.deb to main/c/crtmpserver/crtmpserver-apps_1.0~dfsg-1_amd64.deb crtmpserver-dev_1.0~dfsg-1_amd64.deb to main/c/crtmpserver/crtmpserver-dev_1.0~dfsg-1_amd64.deb crtmpserver-libs_1.0~dfsg-1_amd64.deb to main/c/crtmpserver/crtmpserver-libs_1.0~dfsg-

Re: new version of package 'crtmpserver' was prepared

2012/3/21 Andriy Beregovenko : > Hi, > > I finished update package 'crtmpserver'. > This is major update from the point of view of upstream update, but > debian package changes are insignificant. > > So, please, upload updated version of package. > -- > Best regards, > Andriy > 0xBDDBDAE3 > > -

Processing of crtmpserver_1.0~dfsg-1_amd64.changes

crtmpserver_1.0~dfsg-1_amd64.changes uploaded successfully to localhost along with the files: crtmpserver_1.0~dfsg-1.dsc crtmpserver_1.0~dfsg.orig.tar.bz2 crtmpserver_1.0~dfsg-1.debian.tar.gz crtmpserver_1.0~dfsg-1_amd64.deb crtmpserver-libs_1.0~dfsg-1_amd64.deb crtmpserver-apps_1.0~dfs

Re: Duplicate Packages from Debian archive in DMO

On Wed, Mar 21, 2012 at 7:11 PM, Stuart Prescott wrote: > -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- > Hash: SHA1 > > Hi all, > > Just to put some real data on packages that are in both Debian and > debian-multimedia.org I extracted the appended data from UDD. > > I suspect that many will find inclusion o

Bug#664819: libav source build needs to link with -lgcrypt

On 20-Mar-12, at 9:54 PM, Andres Mejia wrote: This issue is common if you're using the libav-extra libraries. It's likely a broken symlink from your *.so files. I don't think so. Updating libgcrypt11 to 1.5.0-3 fixes the build. Somehow, it eliminates the dependency. Dave -- John David An

Re: Duplicate Packages from Debian archive in DMO

Am Mittwoch, den 21.03.2012, 07:46 -0400 schrieb Andres Mejia: > FYI to all, here was Christian's response. Don't have time yet to > fully respond, but I think keeping some packages there because they're > not uploaded in Debian as quickly is not really a good reason to > upload them or keep them u

Bug#658084: libav-extra: Really necessary?

On 03/21/2012 06:34 PM, Andres Mejia wrote: > On Wed, Mar 21, 2012 at 6:58 PM, Reinhard Tartler wrote: >> On Wed, Mar 21, 2012 at 9:55 PM, Andres Mejia wrote: >>> On Mar 21, 2012 4:40 PM, "Micah Gersten" wrote: On 03/21/2012 06:40 AM, Andres Mejia wrote: > On Wed, Mar 21, 2012 at 2:12 A

Re: libav_0.8.1-2_amd64.changes ACCEPTED into experimental

I should have worded that better. Testers wanted. Please help test the new libav packages. On Wed, Mar 21, 2012 at 7:40 PM, Andres Mejia wrote: > Ok everyone. Feel free to starting testing the new libav packages. > > On Wed, Mar 21, 2012 at 6:33 PM, Debian FTP Masters > wrote: >> >> >> >> Accep

Re: libav_0.8.1-2_amd64.changes ACCEPTED into experimental

Ok everyone. Feel free to starting testing the new libav packages. On Wed, Mar 21, 2012 at 6:33 PM, Debian FTP Masters wrote: > > > > Accepted: > ffmpeg-dbg_0.8.1-2_amd64.deb >  to main/liba/libav/ffmpeg-dbg_0.8.1-2_amd64.deb > ffmpeg-doc_0.8.1-2_all.deb >  to main/liba/libav/ffmpeg-doc_0.8.1-2_a

Bug#658084: libav-extra: Really necessary?

On Wed, Mar 21, 2012 at 6:58 PM, Reinhard Tartler wrote: > On Wed, Mar 21, 2012 at 9:55 PM, Andres Mejia wrote: >> On Mar 21, 2012 4:40 PM, "Micah Gersten" wrote: >>> >>> On 03/21/2012 06:40 AM, Andres Mejia wrote: >>> > On Wed, Mar 21, 2012 at 2:12 AM, Reinhard Tartler >>> > wrote: >>> >> >>>

Bug#658084: libav-extra: Really necessary?

On 03/21/2012 05:58 PM, Reinhard Tartler wrote: > Could anyone from the team please upload 0.8.1 to precise for me > before the freeze? Thanks in advance! I think with the changes made to the version in 4:0.8.1-1, a merge would need an FFe if we're going to keep everything that Debian has enabled.

Re: Duplicate Packages from Debian archive in DMO

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Hi all, Just to put some real data on packages that are in both Debian and debian-multimedia.org I extracted the appended data from UDD. I suspect that many will find inclusion of packages like libdrm-intel1 and libdrm2 somewhat beyond the "multim

Bug#658084: libav-extra: Really necessary?

On Wed, Mar 21, 2012 at 9:55 PM, Andres Mejia wrote: > On Mar 21, 2012 4:40 PM, "Micah Gersten" wrote: >> >> On 03/21/2012 06:40 AM, Andres Mejia wrote: >> > On Wed, Mar 21, 2012 at 2:12 AM, Reinhard Tartler >> > wrote: >> >> >> >> Do you volunteer to do at least the first uploads for libav and

Bug#658084: libav-extra: Really necessary?

On Wed, Mar 21, 2012 at 12:40 PM, Andres Mejia wrote: > On Wed, Mar 21, 2012 at 2:12 AM, Reinhard Tartler wrote: >> On Wed, Mar 21, 2012 at 1:40 AM, Andres Mejia wrote: >>> Here are some of the comments Reinhard said on IRC. Placing them here >>> for recording purposes. >>> >>> [02:47] amejia:

new version of package 'crtmpserver' was prepared

Hi, I finished update package 'crtmpserver'. This is major update from the point of view of upstream update, but debian package changes are insignificant. So, please, upload updated version of package. -- Best regards, Andriy 0xBDDBDAE3 signature.asc Description: Digital signature ___

Bug#664665: marked as done (ITP: zita-ajbridge -- ALSA to JACK bridge)

Your message dated Wed, 21 Mar 2012 22:37:25 + with message-id and subject line Bug#664665: fixed in zita-ajbridge 0.1.0-1 has caused the Debian Bug report #664665, regarding ITP: zita-ajbridge -- ALSA to JACK bridge to be marked as done. This means that you claim that the problem has been de

zita-ajbridge_0.1.0-1_amd64.changes ACCEPTED into unstable

Accepted: zita-ajbridge_0.1.0-1.debian.tar.gz to main/z/zita-ajbridge/zita-ajbridge_0.1.0-1.debian.tar.gz zita-ajbridge_0.1.0-1.dsc to main/z/zita-ajbridge/zita-ajbridge_0.1.0-1.dsc zita-ajbridge_0.1.0-1_amd64.deb to main/z/zita-ajbridge/zita-ajbridge_0.1.0-1_amd64.deb zita-ajbridge_0.1.0.

Bug#658084: marked as done (libav-extra: Really necessary?)

Your message dated Wed, 21 Mar 2012 22:33:18 + with message-id and subject line Bug#658084: fixed in libav 5:0.8.1-2 has caused the Debian Bug report #658084, regarding libav-extra: Really necessary? to be marked as done. This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with. If this

Bug#653451: marked as done (libavcodec-extra-53: Please document the differences in the description)

Your message dated Wed, 21 Mar 2012 22:33:17 + with message-id and subject line Bug#653451: fixed in libav 5:0.8.1-2 has caused the Debian Bug report #653451, regarding libavcodec-extra-53: Please document the differences in the description to be marked as done. This means that you claim tha

Bug#642798: marked as done (libav-extra: Libraries uninstallable because of libav-dbg)

Your message dated Wed, 21 Mar 2012 22:33:17 + with message-id and subject line Bug#642798: fixed in libav 5:0.8.1-2 has caused the Debian Bug report #642798, regarding libav-extra: Libraries uninstallable because of libav-dbg to be marked as done. This means that you claim that the problem h

libav override disparity

There are disparities between your recently accepted upload and the override file for the following file(s): libavdevice-extra-53_0.8.1-2_all.deb: package says section is oldlibs, override says libs. libavdevice-extra-53_0.8.1-2_all.deb: package says priority is extra, override says optional. li

libav_0.8.1-2_amd64.changes ACCEPTED into experimental

Accepted: ffmpeg-dbg_0.8.1-2_amd64.deb to main/liba/libav/ffmpeg-dbg_0.8.1-2_amd64.deb ffmpeg-doc_0.8.1-2_all.deb to main/liba/libav/ffmpeg-doc_0.8.1-2_all.deb ffmpeg_0.8.1-2_all.deb to main/liba/libav/ffmpeg_0.8.1-2_all.deb libav-dbg_0.8.1-2_amd64.deb to main/liba/libav/libav-dbg_0.8.1-

Bug#664967: mediatomb: segfaults while scanning the collection

Package: mediatomb Version: 0.12.1-3 Severity: important Dear Maintainer, scanning the collection segfaults mediatomb with the following syslog entry: mediatomb[7691]: segfault at 34 ip 004a61a2 sp 7fc9c14d86a0 error 4 in mediatomb[40+1ce000] Running mediatomb in the debug mode

intel-vaapi-driver override disparity

There are disparities between your recently accepted upload and the override file for the following file(s): i965-va-driver_1.0.16-4_amd64.deb: package says section is libs, override says oldlibs. i965-va-driver_1.0.16-4_amd64.deb: package says priority is optional, override says extra. libva-in

intel-vaapi-driver_1.0.16-4_amd64.changes ACCEPTED into unstable

Accepted: i965-va-driver-dbg_1.0.16-4_amd64.deb to main/i/intel-vaapi-driver/i965-va-driver-dbg_1.0.16-4_amd64.deb i965-va-driver_1.0.16-4_amd64.deb to main/i/intel-vaapi-driver/i965-va-driver_1.0.16-4_amd64.deb intel-vaapi-driver_1.0.16-4.debian.tar.gz to main/i/intel-vaapi-driver/intel-v

Re: Duplicate Packages from Debian archive in DMO

On Mar 21, 2012 2:26 AM, "Christian Marillat" wrote: > > Andres Mejia writes: > > > Hi, > > Hi, > > > This has been a question that's been asked in the debian-devel mailing > > list and among the Debian multimedia team recently. Why are packages > > already in the Debian archive still being uploa

libav_0.8.1-2_amd64.changes is NEW

ffmpeg-dbg_0.8.1-2_amd64.deb to main/liba/libav/ffmpeg-dbg_0.8.1-2_amd64.deb ffmpeg-doc_0.8.1-2_all.deb to main/liba/libav/ffmpeg-doc_0.8.1-2_all.deb ffmpeg_0.8.1-2_all.deb to main/liba/libav/ffmpeg_0.8.1-2_all.deb libav-dbg_0.8.1-2_amd64.deb to main/liba/libav/libav-dbg_0.8.1-2_amd64.deb l

Bug#658084: libav-extra: Really necessary?

On Mar 21, 2012 4:40 PM, "Micah Gersten" wrote: > > On 03/21/2012 06:40 AM, Andres Mejia wrote: > > On Wed, Mar 21, 2012 at 2:12 AM, Reinhard Tartler wrote: > >> > >> Do you volunteer to do at least the first uploads for libav and > >> libav-extra for ubuntu as well? > > Yes, I'll volunteer, but

Re: Duplicate Packages from Debian archive in DMO

On 12-03-21 at 09:00pm, Fabian Greffrath wrote: > > Each time you quote emails from me or in other ways mention my full > > name, you promote my presence on Internet and therefore my ability > > to earn money on being a famous geek. > > Maybe, but sheer internet presence is not comparable to a D

Bug#658084: libav-extra: Really necessary?

On 03/21/2012 06:40 AM, Andres Mejia wrote: > On Wed, Mar 21, 2012 at 2:12 AM, Reinhard Tartler wrote: >> >> Do you volunteer to do at least the first uploads for libav and >> libav-extra for ubuntu as well? > Yes, I'll volunteer, but the first thing I would do for ubuntu is a) > request libav to

Processing of libav_0.8.1-2_amd64.changes

libav_0.8.1-2_amd64.changes uploaded successfully to localhost along with the files: libav_0.8.1-2.dsc libav_0.8.1-2.debian.tar.gz libav-tools_0.8.1-2_amd64.deb ffmpeg_0.8.1-2_all.deb ffmpeg-dbg_0.8.1-2_amd64.deb libav-dbg_0.8.1-2_amd64.deb libav-regular-dbg_0.8.1-2_amd64.deb libav-

Re: Duplicate Packages from Debian archive in DMO

> Each time you quote emails from me or in other ways mention my full name, you promote my presence on Internet and therefore my ability to earn money on being a famous geek. Maybe, but sheer internet presence is not comparable to a Donate button. > Please stop distorting this issue - it is *not*

Bug#658084: libav-extra: Really necessary?

Alright, going to upload to experimental now. ___ pkg-multimedia-maintainers mailing list pkg-multimedia-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pkg-multimedia-maintainers

libaacs_0.3.1-1_amd64.changes ACCEPTED into unstable

Accepted: libaacs-dev_0.3.1-1_amd64.deb to main/liba/libaacs/libaacs-dev_0.3.1-1_amd64.deb libaacs0_0.3.1-1_amd64.deb to main/liba/libaacs/libaacs0_0.3.1-1_amd64.deb libaacs_0.3.1-1.debian.tar.gz to main/liba/libaacs/libaacs_0.3.1-1.debian.tar.gz libaacs_0.3.1-1.dsc to main/liba/libaacs/

Processing of libaacs_0.3.1-1_amd64.changes

libaacs_0.3.1-1_amd64.changes uploaded successfully to localhost along with the files: libaacs_0.3.1-1.dsc libaacs_0.3.1.orig.tar.bz2 libaacs_0.3.1-1.debian.tar.gz libaacs0_0.3.1-1_amd64.deb libaacs-dev_0.3.1-1_amd64.deb Greetings, Your Debian queue daemon (running on host franc

Re: latest update to libavformat.so.53 breaks mplayer

On Wed, Mar 21, 2012 at 5:54 PM, Christian Hilberg wrote: > Sorry, version information got cut... > >> ii  mplayer  2:1.0~rc4.dfsg1+svn33713-2 > > that's supposed to read '2:1.0~rc4.dfsg1+svn33713-2~bpo60+1' Yes, mplayer in squeeze-backports needs to be updated. Probably libav version 0.8 should

Re: Duplicate Packages from Debian archive in DMO

On 12-03-21 at 12:50pm, Fabian Greffrath wrote: > Am 21.03.2012 12:46, schrieb Andres Mejia: > >upload them or keep them uploaded at DMO. He's a DD and he could help > >to keep these packages updated in Debian instead (though this would > >mean he would have to work with the team). > > Don't for

Bug#664871: mplayer2's output has lots of debug messages from libav

Package: mplayer2 Version: 2.0-426-gc32b3ed-2 Severity: normal Hi. Whenever I listen to the radio station at http://media.sgr.globo.com/CBN/cbnsp.stream/playlist.m3u8 I get bazillions of messages like the following in my output: , | Using network protocols without global network initia

Bug#664863: qjackctl: Do not stop Jack server unconditionnally on exit

Package: qjackctl Version: 0.3.8-1 Severity: wishlist Qjackctl can be configured to start, or not, the Jack server on startup; however, it apparently can't be told to leave the server running on exit. This should be made configurable; alternatively, Qjackctl should remember whether it started the

mididings_0~20120312-1_amd64.changes ACCEPTED into unstable

Accepted: mididings-doc_0~20120312-1_all.deb to main/m/mididings/mididings-doc_0~20120312-1_all.deb mididings_0~20120312-1.debian.tar.gz to main/m/mididings/mididings_0~20120312-1.debian.tar.gz mididings_0~20120312-1.dsc to main/m/mididings/mididings_0~20120312-1.dsc mididings_0~20120312-1

Processing of mididings_0~20120312-1_amd64.changes

mididings_0~20120312-1_amd64.changes uploaded successfully to localhost along with the files: mididings_0~20120312-1.dsc mididings_0~20120312.orig.tar.gz mididings_0~20120312-1.debian.tar.gz python-mididings_0~20120312-1_amd64.deb mididings_0~20120312-1_all.deb mididings-doc_0~20120312-

Re: Duplicate Packages from Debian archive in DMO

Am 21.03.2012 12:46, schrieb Andres Mejia: upload them or keep them uploaded at DMO. He's a DD and he could help to keep these packages updated in Debian instead (though this would mean he would have to work with the team). Don't forget he is raising money with DMO. Each removed incentive to u

Re: Duplicate Packages from Debian archive in DMO

FYI to all, here was Christian's response. Don't have time yet to fully respond, but I think keeping some packages there because they're not uploaded in Debian as quickly is not really a good reason to upload them or keep them uploaded at DMO. He's a DD and he could help to keep these packages upda

Bug#658084: libav-extra: Really necessary?

On Wed, Mar 21, 2012 at 2:12 AM, Reinhard Tartler wrote: > On Wed, Mar 21, 2012 at 1:40 AM, Andres Mejia wrote: >> Here are some of the comments Reinhard said on IRC. Placing them here >> for recording purposes. >> >> [02:47] amejia: in the merged case, I think the -dev >> packages can have tigh

Bug#658084: libav-extra: Really necessary?

Am 21.03.2012 01:40, schrieb Andres Mejia: I would like to upload a package to experimental soon. Anyone have any other suggestions at this time? BTW, I have added a mention of the license impact to libavcodec-extra's decription. ___ pkg-multimed

Bug#658084: libav-extra: Really necessary?

Am 21.03.2012 03:49, schrieb Andres Mejia: If nobody has any other suggestions, I would like to upload this to experimental for further testing. Go, Andres, go! ;) ___ pkg-multimedia-maintainers mailing list pkg-multimedia-maintainers@lists.alioth.