Hi
On Sun, Aug 10, 2014 at 09:10:23AM -0400, Reinhard Tartler wrote:
> On Sun, Aug 10, 2014 at 3:01 AM, Matthias Urlichs wrote:
[...]
> > IMHO it's reasonable to expect core APIs to be upwards-compatible and keep
> > deprecated interfaces around for another release or two.
>
> This is exactly wh
Hi,
On Montag, 11. August 2014, Ben Hutchings wrote:
> dvswitch was also broken by the removal of support for downscaled
> decoding of DV video. I don't know whether that change is specific to
> libav or was also made in FFmpeg.
dvswitch is still broken and there is no dvswitch in jessie...
We
On Sun, 2014-08-10 at 23:02 +0200, Andreas Cadhalpun wrote:
[...]
> * dvswitch: Still uses CodecID (and also avcodec_encode_video, but
> that is still present in FFmpeg.) [3]
[...]
dvswitch was also broken by the removal of support for downscaled
decoding of DV video. I don't know whether t
Hi Reinhard,
On 10.08.2014 15:10, Reinhard Tartler wrote:
On Sun, Aug 10, 2014 at 3:01 AM, Matthias Urlichs wrote:
IMHO it's reasonable to expect core APIs to be upwards-compatible and keep
deprecated interfaces around for another release or two.
This is exactly what Libav is doing: The depr
On Sun, Aug 10, 2014 at 3:01 AM, Matthias Urlichs wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Jean-Yves Avenard:
>> Including rename of constants (code enums id for example).
>
> Another nail in libav's coffin, then.
That's one way to see it. To me, this makes mythtv unsuitable for
inclusion into Debian. Let me explain why
On 08/08/2014 09:22 PM, Matthias Urlichs wrote:
> We'd also benefit from the fact that Upstream tends to use FFmpeg. I'd
> hate to report some intractable codec bug which Upstream closes with
> an "it works with FFmpeg" comment
Oh, btw, just a few days ago, that's exactly what happened on kdenlive
Quoting Bálint Réczey (2014-08-09 14:39:09)
> 2014-08-09 13:41 GMT+02:00 Jonas Smedegaard :
>> Quoting Bálint Réczey (2014-08-09 11:38:54)
>>> Upstream makes sure all their use-cases work well with FFmpeg and
>>> not interested in Libav-related issues.
>>
>> According to XBMC, they only make sure
2014-08-09 13:41 GMT+02:00 Jonas Smedegaard :
> Quoting Bálint Réczey (2014-08-09 11:38:54)
>> XBMC works with Libav for most use-cases while it fails in the rest,
>> notably it can not use VDPAU acceleration which is being
>> (understandably) complained about very often (#742896). Another issue
>>
Quoting Bálint Réczey (2014-08-09 11:38:54)
> XBMC works with Libav for most use-cases while it fails in the rest,
> notably it can not use VDPAU acceleration which is being
> (understandably) complained about very often (#742896). Another issue
> is Libav crashing on bad input which makes XBMC/
Hi,
2014-08-08 20:06 GMT+02:00 Andreas Cadhalpun :
> Hi Reinhard,
>
>
> On 08.08.2014 14:29, Reinhard Tartler wrote:
>>
>> On Fri, Aug 8, 2014 at 7:13 AM, Matthias Urlichs
>> wrote:
>> I intended to come up with a more timely full response, but I just
>> didn't get to it so far.
>
>
> Thanks for
Hi,
Alessio Treglia:
> We've spent a lot of time over the past months talking to upstreams,
> forwarding them our patches and make sure their programs and libraries
> work with libav.
> We've spent ***months*** in making the whole thing work, and dropping
> libav in favour of FFmpeg at this point,
Hi Reinhard,
On 08.08.2014 14:29, Reinhard Tartler wrote:
On Fri, Aug 8, 2014 at 7:13 AM, Matthias Urlichs wrote:
I intended to come up with a more timely full response, but I just
didn't get to it so far.
Thanks for explaining your point of view here.
For now, please refer to http://lwn.ne
On 8 August 2014 13:29, Reinhard Tartler wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 8, 2014 at 7:13 AM, Matthias Urlichs wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> Andreas Cadhalpun:
>>> Once FFmpeg is back in the archive, it'll be easy to reintroduce MPlayer. It
>>> has been removed from sid, since it fails to build against Libav, but it
>
Hi,
On Fri, Aug 8, 2014 at 12:13 PM, Matthias Urlichs wrote:
> That leaves the question of the "official" opinion of the libav
> maintainers (pkg-multimedia-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org).
> Did none of them write anything in "defense" of libav, or have I simply
> missed it?
>
> IMHO the be
Quoting Reinhard Tartler (2014-08-08 14:29:59)
> For now, please refer to http://lwn.net/Articles/607662/,
> http://codecs.multimedia.cx/?p=370 (rather old, but still true), and
> http://codecs.multimedia.cx/?p=674 (recent update on that matter)
>
> Regarding Marco's argument that libav had few f
On Fri, Aug 8, 2014 at 7:13 AM, Matthias Urlichs wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Andreas Cadhalpun:
>> Once FFmpeg is back in the archive, it'll be easy to reintroduce MPlayer. It
>> has been removed from sid, since it fails to build against Libav, but it
>> builds fine against FFmpeg.
>> (It uses some of the fe
On Aug 08, Matthias Urlichs wrote:
> IMHO the best idea at this point would be to toss out libav, and rebuild
> the rdeps with ffmpeg. Now, before it's too late for jessie.
Agreed. The interested parties should really raise this with the CTTE
ASAP.
--
ciao,
Marco
signature.asc
Description: D
Hi,
Andreas Cadhalpun:
> Once FFmpeg is back in the archive, it'll be easy to reintroduce MPlayer. It
> has been removed from sid, since it fails to build against Libav, but it
> builds fine against FFmpeg.
> (It uses some of the features only provided by FFmpeg.)
>
Yet another reason why solely
Charles Plessy writes ("Re: Bug#729203: [FFmpeg-devel] Reintroducing FFmpeg to
Debian"):
> Le Thu, Jul 31, 2014 at 04:29:53PM -0700, Russ Allbery a écrit :
> > Based purely on security evaluations by others that I was able to find on
> > the web, FFmpeg appears to be
Andreas Cadhalpun wrote:
> Given the amount of software in Debian and thus the amount of security
> fixes necessary for a stable release, I think that the additional
> stable-security uploads for FFmpeg in the order of 10 per release will
> be hardly noticeable.
They are surely noticeable to the s
On 29.07.2014 21:59, Raphael Geissert wrote:
On Tuesday 29 July 2014 18:43:17 Andreas Cadhalpun wrote:
On 29.07.2014 09:47, Raphael Geissert wrote:
Andreas Cadhalpun wrote:
According to the changelog[1], there have been 8 security updates for
ffmpeg in squeeze.
There would have been more
Y
On Tuesday 29 July 2014 18:43:17 Andreas Cadhalpun wrote:
> On 29.07.2014 09:47, Raphael Geissert wrote:
> > Andreas Cadhalpun wrote:
> >> According to the changelog[1], there have been 8 security updates for
> >> ffmpeg in squeeze.
> >
> > There would have been more
>
> You're right, my calculat
On Tue, Jul 29, 2014 at 6:10 PM, Andreas Cadhalpun <
andreas.cadhal...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> I don't have an opinion about ffmpeg vs libav, apart from how hard the
>> soname transitions are, especially in ubuntu where we somehow ended up
>> with ex-multimedia packages around that either never
Hi Raphael,
On 29.07.2014 09:47, Raphael Geissert wrote:
Andreas Cadhalpun wrote:
According to the changelog[1], there have been 8 security updates for
ffmpeg in squeeze.
There would have been more
You're right, my calculation is slightly flawed.
but the code has evolved too much for it t
Hi Dimitri,
On 29.07.2014 03:12, Dimitri John Ledkov wrote:
I don't have an opinion about ffmpeg vs libav, apart from how hard the
soname transitions are, especially in ubuntu where we somehow ended up
with ex-multimedia packages around that either never were in debian,
or have been long removed
Andreas Cadhalpun wrote:
> According to the changelog[1], there have been 8 security updates for
> ffmpeg in squeeze.
There would have been more but the code has evolved too much for it to be
feasible to backport the patches. Not to mention that some bugs that are being
fixed are, for example,
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On 2014-07-29 03:20, Marco d'Itri wrote:
>> if they are not drop in replacements, and it would also be a
>> pain if
>>> higher up packages link-in both ffmpeg & libav and some
>>> clashing symbols are present...
> This is why the new ffmpeg will use
On 28 July 2014 15:05, Andreas Cadhalpun
wrote:
> On 28.07.2014 13:52, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote:
>>
>> On Mon, 28 Jul 2014, Norbert Preining wrote:
>>>
>>> On Sun, 27 Jul 2014, Reinhard Tartler wrote:
In [1], Moritz from the security team clearly stated that he is more
than
On Mon, Jul 28, 2014 at 04:05:46PM +0200, Andreas Cadhalpun wrote:
> On 28.07.2014 13:52, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote:
> >On Mon, 28 Jul 2014, Norbert Preining wrote:
> >>On Sun, 27 Jul 2014, Reinhard Tartler wrote:
> >>>In [1], Moritz from the security team clearly stated that he is more
> >
On 28.07.2014 13:52, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote:
On Mon, 28 Jul 2014, Norbert Preining wrote:
On Sun, 27 Jul 2014, Reinhard Tartler wrote:
In [1], Moritz from the security team clearly stated that he is more
than uncomfortable with having more than one copy of libavcodec in
debian/testin
El 28/07/2014 08:53, "Henrique de Moraes Holschuh"
escribió:
> However:
>
> The change in Debian-specific symbol versioning and sonames being done to
> ffmpeg so that it is co-installable with libav *is* a problem.
>
> It has to be done in coordination with the Canonical guys, so that both
> Debia
On 28.07.2014 13:24, Alessio Treglia wrote:
On Mon, Jul 28, 2014 at 12:12 PM, "IOhannes m zmölnig (Debian/GNU)"
wrote:
Except that, for a lot of the depending packages, there would be an
immediate benefit in the number of bugs fixed.
at least in theory.
Plus I would definitely appreciate
On 28.07.2014 12:20, Thorsten Glaser wrote:
Andreas Cadhalpun wrote:
* Do you intend to replace Libav by FFmpeg in Debian?
No, there is no need to replace anything as long as it is maintained.
Currently the main goal is to give multimedia maintainers a choice
between the two sets
On Mon, 28 Jul 2014, Norbert Preining wrote:
> On Sun, 27 Jul 2014, Reinhard Tartler wrote:
> > In [1], Moritz from the security team clearly stated that he is more
> > than uncomfortable with having more than one copy of libavcodec in
> > debian/testing. In consequence this means that any package
On Mon, Jul 28, 2014 at 12:12 PM, "IOhannes m zmölnig (Debian/GNU)"
wrote:
>> Except that, for a lot of the depending packages, there would be an
>> immediate benefit in the number of bugs fixed.
>
> at least in theory.
Plus I would definitely appreciate to see some bug stats supporting
such a t
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
personally i would welcome if both libav and ffmpeg could co-exist
within Debian¹.
as i see it, libav and ffmpeg have diverged, and as such i would like
to have the choice which one to use.
On 2014-07-28 11:55, Marco d'Itri wrote:
> On Jul 28, Ales
Hi Julien,
On 28.07.2014 10:44, Julien Cristau wrote:
It remains to be seen, what the release team prefers: frustrated users and
developers or both forks in jessie.
The release team is likely to let the people involved in multimedia foo
fight it out among themselves and pick a winner.
I am n
On Jul 28, Alessio Treglia wrote:
> Personally I don't feel like dropping libav in favor of ffmpeg now at
> this stage. It's too late for Jessie.
Except that, for a lot of the depending packages, there would be an
immediate benefit in the number of bugs fixed.
Personally I feel that we have inf
Ciao,
On Mon, Jul 28, 2014 at 9:44 AM, Julien Cristau wrote:
> The release team is likely to let the people involved in multimedia foo
> fight it out among themselves and pick a winner. We're not going to
> ship both and hand that mess over to the security team.
Personally I don't feel like dro
On Mon, Jul 28, 2014 at 03:39:29 +0200, Andreas Cadhalpun wrote:
> Hi Reinhard,
>
> On 28.07.2014 02:05, Reinhard Tartler wrote:
> >On Sun, Jul 27, 2014 at 7:20 PM, Andreas Cadhalpun
> > wrote:
> >
> >> * Does it make sense for me to switch my package?
> >>The rule of thumb is, if your upstr
Hi Reinhard,
On 28.07.2014 02:05, Reinhard Tartler wrote:
On Sun, Jul 27, 2014 at 7:20 PM, Andreas Cadhalpun
wrote:
* Does it make sense for me to switch my package?
The rule of thumb is, if your upstream uses FFmpeg for development
you probably want to switch to using it, too.
In
Hi,
On Sun, 27 Jul 2014, Reinhard Tartler wrote:
> In [1], Moritz from the security team clearly stated that he is more
> than uncomfortable with having more than one copy of libavcodec in
> debian/testing. In consequence this means that any package that builds
> against the ffmpeg packages curren
On Jul 28, Reinhard Tartler wrote:
> Moreover, I am curious why I haven't seen you working on libavcodec
> bugs in Debian before, and why do you believe you can do a better job
> with the ffmpeg package currently on NEW?
Why should he work on libavcodec when he (along with many other people)
wan
On Sun, Jul 27, 2014 at 7:20 PM, Andreas Cadhalpun
wrote:
> * Does it make sense for me to switch my package?
>The rule of thumb is, if your upstream uses FFmpeg for development
>you probably want to switch to using it, too.
In [1], Moritz from the security team clearly stated that he i
44 matches
Mail list logo
