Hi,
On 27/01/18 12:09, Salvatore Bonaccorso wrote:
> On Sat, Jan 27, 2018 at 10:19:19AM +, James Cowgill wrote:
>> On 26/01/18 17:53, Moritz Mühlenhoff wrote:
>>> On Fri, Jan 26, 2018 at 05:13:54PM +, James Cowgill wrote:
I've pushed ffmpeg 3.2.10 here:
https://salsa.debian.org/m
Hi James,
On Sat, Jan 27, 2018 at 10:19:19AM +, James Cowgill wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On 26/01/18 17:53, Moritz Mühlenhoff wrote:
> > On Fri, Jan 26, 2018 at 05:13:54PM +, James Cowgill wrote:
> >> Hi,
> >>
> >> I've pushed ffmpeg 3.2.10 here:
> >> https://salsa.debian.org/multimedia-team/ffmpeg
On Fri, Jan 26, 2018 at 05:13:54PM +, James Cowgill wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I've pushed ffmpeg 3.2.10 here:
> https://salsa.debian.org/multimedia-team/ffmpeg/tree/debian/stretch
>
> Since I've not been doing these updates before, what is the correct
> procedure. Do I just upload it to security-maste
Hi,
On 26/01/18 17:53, Moritz Mühlenhoff wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 26, 2018 at 05:13:54PM +, James Cowgill wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> I've pushed ffmpeg 3.2.10 here:
>> https://salsa.debian.org/multimedia-team/ffmpeg/tree/debian/stretch
>>
>> Since I've not been doing these updates before, what is the cor
Processing control commands:
> reassign -1 src:aubio 0.4.5-1
Bug #884232 [src:ffmpeg] ffmpeg: CVE-2017-17555
Bug reassigned from package 'src:ffmpeg' to 'src:aubio'.
No longer marked as found in versions ffmpeg/7:3.4.1-1 and ffmpeg/7:3.4-4.
Ignoring request to alter fixed versions of bug #884232 t
Aha! Found it!
https://anonscm.debian.org/git/pkg-multimedia/ffmpeg.git/commit/?h=jessie&id=cc62001e2fcad3ec0a95f6bf20d7a7c7ac892a9c
It looks like the built-in AAC encoder is now preferred, with the upstream
3.0 release.
Thanks.
Rob
On Thu, Jan 19, 2017 at 10:04 AM Rob Ekl wrote:
> Thanks fo
Thanks for your reply. With the previous version of ffmpeg that I was
using, I had set up my scripts to use libfdk_aac, described on that page as
"the highest-quality AAC encoder available with ffmpeg". I have never used
the VisualOn AAC encoding library.
Is there a reason why the FDK encoder is n
Hi Rob,
2017-01-19 15:04 GMT+01:00 Rob Ekl :
> Hi. I just upgraded to ffmpeg-7:3.2.2-1~bpo8+1 on jessie, and the FDK AAC
> encoder seems to be missing. Do I need to do something to see it? Can it be
> added?
>
> $ ffmpeg -encoders | grep -i aac
> ffmpeg version 3.2.2-1~bpo8+1 Copyright (c) 2000-20
Processing control commands:
> reassign -1 libvpx 1.5.0-2
Bug #815673 [ffmpeg] ffmpeg: VP9 seek broken in ffplay
Bug reassigned from package 'ffmpeg' to 'libvpx'.
No longer marked as found in versions ffmpeg/7:2.8.6-1.
Ignoring request to alter fixed versions of bug #815673 to the same values
pre
There seems to be at least some activity here. Maybe we can update the
Debian libpostproc package to Michael's new branch.
Derek, just to clarify since you worked on the branch the package is
currently based on: What are your thoughts on this? Are you interested in
continuing this effort? What wo
Le duodi 22 fructidor, an CCXXII, Reinhard Tartler a écrit :
> May I ask out of curiosity, what in FFmpeg actually uses libpostproc
> other than than libavfilter/vf_pp.c? You said that you prefer to
> maintain libpostproc inside FFmpeg because that way you can apply the
> FFmpeg test system on it.
On Mon, Sep 08, 2014 at 08:13:48AM -0400, Reinhard Tartler wrote:
> On Sun, Sep 7, 2014 at 5:30 PM, Michael Niedermayer wrote:
> > On Fri, Sep 05, 2014 at 08:18:57AM +0200, Reimar Döffinger wrote:
> >> On 05.09.2014, at 03:46, Reinhard Tartler wrote:
> >> > On Thu, Sep 4, 2014 at 9:32 PM, Michael
On Mon, Sep 08, 2014 at 08:13:48AM -0400, Reinhard Tartler wrote:
[..]
> May I ask out of curiosity, what in FFmpeg actually uses libpostproc
> other than than libavfilter/vf_pp.c? You said that you prefer to
> maintain libpostproc inside FFmpeg because that way you can apply the
> FFmpeg test syst
On Sun, Sep 7, 2014 at 5:30 PM, Michael Niedermayer wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 05, 2014 at 08:18:57AM +0200, Reimar Döffinger wrote:
>> On 05.09.2014, at 03:46, Reinhard Tartler wrote:
>> > On Thu, Sep 4, 2014 at 9:32 PM, Michael Niedermayer
>> > wrote:
>> >>> At the end of the day, I need a source t
On Fri, Sep 05, 2014 at 08:18:57AM +0200, Reimar Döffinger wrote:
> On 05.09.2014, at 03:46, Reinhard Tartler wrote:
> > On Thu, Sep 4, 2014 at 9:32 PM, Michael Niedermayer
> > wrote:
> >>> At the end of the day, I need a source tarball that contains
> >>> maintained sources of a stand-alone lib
On 05.09.2014, at 03:46, Reinhard Tartler wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 4, 2014 at 9:32 PM, Michael Niedermayer wrote:
>>> At the end of the day, I need a source tarball that contains
>>> maintained sources of a stand-alone libpostproc. I don't care too much
>>> how it is created, as long as it doesn't re
On Thu, Sep 4, 2014 at 9:32 PM, Michael Niedermayer wrote:
>> At the end of the day, I need a source tarball that contains
>> maintained sources of a stand-alone libpostproc. I don't care too much
>> how it is created, as long as it doesn't result in code-duplication
>> with existing sources in De
On Thu, Sep 04, 2014 at 07:42:00PM -0400, Reinhard Tartler wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 4, 2014 at 7:27 AM, Michael Niedermayer wrote:
> > Hi Reinhard
> >
> > On Wed, Sep 03, 2014 at 11:33:48PM -0400, Reinhard Tartler wrote:
> >> On Wed, Sep 3, 2014 at 9:34 PM, Michael Niedermayer
> >> wrote:
> >> > On
On Thu, Sep 4, 2014 at 7:27 AM, Michael Niedermayer wrote:
> Hi Reinhard
>
> On Wed, Sep 03, 2014 at 11:33:48PM -0400, Reinhard Tartler wrote:
>> On Wed, Sep 3, 2014 at 9:34 PM, Michael Niedermayer wrote:
>> > On Wed, Sep 03, 2014 at 08:22:43PM -0400, Reinhard Tartler wrote:
>> >> On Wed, Sep 3,
Hi Reinhard
On Wed, Sep 03, 2014 at 11:33:48PM -0400, Reinhard Tartler wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 3, 2014 at 9:34 PM, Michael Niedermayer wrote:
> > On Wed, Sep 03, 2014 at 08:22:43PM -0400, Reinhard Tartler wrote:
> >> On Wed, Sep 3, 2014 at 9:39 AM, Michael Niedermayer
> >> wrote:
> >> > On Tue, Se
On Wed, Sep 3, 2014 at 9:34 PM, Michael Niedermayer wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 03, 2014 at 08:22:43PM -0400, Reinhard Tartler wrote:
>> On Wed, Sep 3, 2014 at 9:39 AM, Michael Niedermayer wrote:
>> > On Tue, Sep 02, 2014 at 10:06:10PM +, Thorsten Glaser wrote:
>> >> Hi,
>> >>
>> >> as discussed in
On Wed, Sep 03, 2014 at 08:22:43PM -0400, Reinhard Tartler wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 3, 2014 at 9:39 AM, Michael Niedermayer wrote:
> > On Tue, Sep 02, 2014 at 10:06:10PM +, Thorsten Glaser wrote:
> >> Hi,
> >>
> >> as discussed in IRC, I was trying to minimal-invasively port
> >> libpostproc (the
On Wed, Sep 3, 2014 at 9:39 AM, Michael Niedermayer wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 02, 2014 at 10:06:10PM +, Thorsten Glaser wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> as discussed in IRC, I was trying to minimal-invasively port
>> libpostproc (the Debian source package) to x32¹. I could not
>> test it (for lack of a stand-al
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
Canonical guys, so that both
> Debian and Ubuntu do the same thing re. ffmpeg sonames and symbol
> versioning. Otherwise, the ffmpeg packages will be of very limited use
> (useless to run third-party binary-only games ;-p).
Not really, ffmpeg is packaged as a secondary multimedia library,
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
co-installable with libav *is* a problem.
It has to be done in coordination with the Canonical guys, so that both
Debian and Ubuntu do the same thing re. ffmpeg sonames and symbol
versioning. Otherwise, the ffmpeg packages will be of very limited use
(useless to run third-party binary-only games ;-p).
I
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
On Fri, Sep 27, 2013 at 7:25 AM, Romain Bouqueau
wrote:
> Hi Reinhard,
>
>>> My advise would be to focus on Libav, as FFmpeg closely tracks
>>> "upstream", and claims to ensures API/ABI compatibility. Michael
>>> Niedermayer offered repeatedly in the past to merge every development
>>> of Libav in
PS: just wrote on the libav-api mailing-list
http://lists.libav.org/pipermail/libav-api/2013-September/000741.html
Hi Reinhard,
>
> My advise would be to focus on Libav, as FFmpeg closely tracks
>>> "upstream", and claims to ensures API/ABI compatibility. Michael
>>> Niedermayer offered repeat
Hi Reinhard,
My advise would be to focus on Libav, as FFmpeg closely tracks
>> "upstream", and claims to ensures API/ABI compatibility. Michael
>> Niedermayer offered repeatedly in the past to merge every development
>> of Libav into FFmpeg, so that should solve your struggle for good.
>>
>> Feel
[keeping Rogério cc; dropping Romain now warned on posting style]
Quoting Rogério Theodoro de Brito (2013-09-26 17:49:13)
> On Wed, Sep 25, 2013 at 10:33 AM, Jonas Smedegaard
> wrote:
>> Quoting Romain Bouqueau (2013-09-25 14:23:46)
>>> We would need you to provide both FFmpeg and libav as separ
Hi there.
On Wed, Sep 25, 2013 at 10:33 AM, Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
> (please mention if you are not subscribed to the list and need copy of
> replies - normal for Debian lists is to post only to list)
While I am subscribed to the list, I would appreciate it if I received
a copy at rbrito at ime
>
> My advise would be to focus on Libav, as FFmpeg closely tracks
> "upstream", and claims to ensures API/ABI compatibility. Michael
> Niedermayer offered repeatedly in the past to merge every development
> of Libav into FFmpeg, so that should solve your struggle for good.
>
> Feel free to drop by
On Wed, Sep 25, 2013 at 2:23 PM, Romain Bouqueau
wrote:
> Dear Debian maintainers,
>
> I'm a contributor on the GPAC multimedia project. I'm writing to you because
> we spend more and more time trying to keep our project compatible with both
> FFmpeg and libav. This is not sustainable.
>
> We woul
Hi Romain,
(please mention if you are not subscribed to the list and need copy of
replies - normal for Debian lists is to post only to list)
Quoting Romain Bouqueau (2013-09-25 14:23:46)
> I'm a contributor on the GPAC multimedia project. I'm writing to you
> because we spend more and more time
Processing commands for cont...@bugs.debian.org:
> block 716735 by 706798
Bug #716735 [ffmpeg] ffmpeg is many years outdated
716735 was not blocked by any bugs.
716735 was not blocking any bugs.
Added blocking bug(s) of 716735: 706798
> thanks
Stopping processing here.
Please contact me if you ne
Fabian Greffrath greffrath.com> writes:
> I am just a contributor to the *Debian packaging* of the software and
> do not care that much if the libraries originate from the ffmpeg or the
> libav project.
Sorry to have wasted your time!
Please allow me a little sarcasm:
I am just an OpenSuse user
Hi,
Am 13.10.2011 23:17, schrieb Carl Eugen Hoyos:
Is this purely what you expect from Michael, or did you find anything in his
mail that made you believe it was written in a biased way?
(I ask because I was impressed how unbiased he wrote the message - I wouldn't
have been able to after what ha
Hi!
Fabian Greffrath greffrath.com> writes:
> thanks for presenting your - doubtless biased, but however - point of
> view.
Is this purely what you expect from Michael, or did you find anything in his
mail that made you believe it was written in a biased way?
(I ask because I was impressed how
Dear Michael,
thanks for presenting your - doubtless biased, but however - point of
view.
Am 11.10.2011 02:24, schrieb Michael Niedermayer:
In terms of features:
As far as I know, as an outsider, the reasons for the work were not
technical ones. Has the situation relaxed a bit in this rega
Hi Fabian, Dominik, Debian developers
On Wed, Oct 05, 2011 at 11:43:19AM +0200, Fabian Greffrath wrote:
> Dear Dominik,
>
> Am 23.09.2011 18:03, schrieb Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski:
> >Dear All,
> >I'm sending this (Bcc) to Debian/Ubuntu package maintainers who are listed
> >under "Original Ma
Dear Dominik,
Am 23.09.2011 18:03, schrieb Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski:
Dear All,
I'm sending this (Bcc) to Debian/Ubuntu package maintainers who are listed
under "Original Maintainers" on http://packages.ubuntu.com/oneiric/ffmpeg
and who seem to be doing something at least a bit related stil
On Wed, Jul 20, 2011 at 14:36:30 (CEST), guanting wrote:
> hi, debian maintainer
>
> excuse,
>
> I need faac encoder for my computer.
>
> how do i install libfaac in ffmpeg package (4:0.5.2-6, squeeze version) ? :(
recompile your libav/ffmpeg package with faac installed. The packaging
will enabl
On 11-04-04 at 02:33am, Ivo wrote:
> I just noticed that debian sid switched the ffmpeg package (and
> related packages) to a fork that just appeared on the scene. A bunch
> of guys tried to takeover the official ffmpeg site and repo and when
> that didn't work (they were forced out by the offic
Am 21.03.2011 11:00, schrieb Reinhard Tartler:
TBH no idea, I would need to look into that more closely as well. I
guess it's just a matter of adding the build dep and passing the right
line to configure.
I have added libjack-dev to Build-Depends and now ./configure shows
"jack" among the Enab
On Mon, Mar 21, 2011 at 10:12:53 (CET), Fabian Greffrath wrote:
> Am 21.03.2011 09:58, schrieb Reinhard Tartler:
>> Sure, feel free to go ahead (I forgot it for the last upload already)
>
> Alright, what's the curent best practice for building with JACK support?
> Adding libjack-dev to BD and be d
Am 21.03.2011 09:58, schrieb Reinhard Tartler:
Sure, feel free to go ahead (I forgot it for the last upload already)
Alright, what's the curent best practice for building with JACK
support? Adding libjack-dev to BD and be done with it or do we need
special-casing for JACK2?
On Mon, Mar 21, 2011 at 09:37:04 (CET), Fabian Greffrath wrote:
> Am 18.03.2011 14:59, schrieb Reinhard Tartler:
>> please file a wishlist report against libavdevice52.
>
> Let's just enable it in git, or not?
Sure, feel free to go ahead (I forgot it for the last upload already)
--
Gruesse/gree
Am 18.03.2011 14:59, schrieb Reinhard Tartler:
please file a wishlist report against libavdevice52.
Let's just enable it in git, or not?
- Fabian
___
pkg-multimedia-maintainers mailing list
pkg-multimedia-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org
http://
On Fri, Mar 18, 2011 at 13:47:16 (CET), Dragan Noveski wrote:
> i am an aptosid user and using the ffmpeg-4:0.6.1-5 on my system.
> if i am looking right, this version is compiled w/out jack support.
> is there any special reason, or has the jack support just been forgotten
> while preparing the p
On Thu, 2011-02-17 at 21:12 +, Adam D. Barratt wrote:
> [debian-devel dropped from Cc as it didn't seem relevant to the mail]
>
> On Tue, 2011-02-15 at 12:06 +0100, Reinhard Tartler wrote:
> > It is here: http://release.debian.org/transitions/ffmpeg.html
> >
> > AFAIUI all packages marked red
On Thu, 2011-02-17 at 22:21 +0100, Benjamin Drung wrote:
> Am Donnerstag, den 17.02.2011, 21:12 + schrieb Adam D. Barratt:
> > I've scheduled an initial set of packages on most architectures (not
> > alpha, hppa or mips due to the size of their queues); let's see how that
> > goes.
[...]
> You
Am Donnerstag, den 17.02.2011, 21:12 + schrieb Adam D. Barratt:
> [debian-devel dropped from Cc as it didn't seem relevant to the mail]
>
> On Tue, 2011-02-15 at 12:06 +0100, Reinhard Tartler wrote:
> > On Di, Feb 15, 2011 at 09:31:33 (CET), Reinhard Tartler wrote:
> >
> > > BTW, where has m
[debian-devel dropped from Cc as it didn't seem relevant to the mail]
On Tue, 2011-02-15 at 12:06 +0100, Reinhard Tartler wrote:
> On Di, Feb 15, 2011 at 09:31:33 (CET), Reinhard Tartler wrote:
>
> > BTW, where has mehdi's excellent transition tracker gone?
>
> It is here: http://release.debian
The following message is a courtesy copy of an article
that has been posted to gmane.linux.debian.devel.release as well.
On Di, Feb 15, 2011 at 09:31:33 (CET), Reinhard Tartler wrote:
> BTW, where has mehdi's excellent transition tracker gone?
It is here: http://release.debian.org/transitions/f
The following message is a courtesy copy of an article
that has been posted to
gmane.linux.debian.devel.release,gmane.linux.debian.alioth.multimedia-maintainers
as well.
On So, Feb 06, 2011 at 14:29:33 (CET), Reinhard Tartler wrote:
> FYI: I just accepted mehdis offer from debconf 10 to upload
Am Sonntag, den 06.02.2011, 14:29 +0100 schrieb Reinhard Tartler:
> FYI: I just accepted mehdis offer from debconf 10 to upload ffmpeg just
> after the squeeze release. I've got a lot of pings and flames that this
> wasn't included in squeeze, we discussed this to death in NYC, and
> therefore just
On Thu, Aug 05, 2010 at 09:39:26 (EDT), Eric Dantan Rzewnicki wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 05, 2010 at 03:12:30PM +0200, Brent Clark wrote:
>> On 05/08/2010 14:58, Reinhard Tartler wrote:
>>> I've talked to the release managers on tuesday about this, and we more
>>> or less agreed that it's too late for s
On Thu, Aug 05, 2010 at 03:12:30PM +0200, Brent Clark wrote:
> On 05/08/2010 14:58, Reinhard Tartler wrote:
>> I've talked to the release managers on tuesday about this, and we more
>> or less agreed that it's too late for squeeze.
>>
>> I've tried, but it's no longer in my hands.
>>
>
> Thanks for
On 05/08/2010 14:58, Reinhard Tartler wrote:
I've talked to the release managers on tuesday about this, and we more
or less agreed that it's too late for squeeze.
I've tried, but it's no longer in my hands.
Thanks for replying and trying.
Kind Regards
Brent Clark
___
On Thu, Aug 05, 2010 at 05:59:10 (EDT), Brent Clark wrote:
> To whom it may concern
>
> Any chance of moving ffmpeg from experimental to unstable.
I've talked to the release managers on tuesday about this, and we more
or less agreed that it's too late for squeeze.
I've tried, but it's no longer
Am 01.06.2010 15:22, schrieb Reinhard Tartler:
so nothing too important, IMO the package should be updated, we can drop
some local patches by doing so.
done.
___
pkg-multimedia-maintainers mailing list
pkg-multimedia-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.
On Di, Jun 01, 2010 at 15:09:09 (CEST), Fabian Greffrath wrote:
> A few days ago ffmpeg released 0.5.2. Does it make sense to switch to
> this version or is it just the same as 0.5.1 with two of our patches
> merged? The changelog didn't read exhaustive...
yes, yes and yes.
so nothing too import
On Do, Jan 28, 2010 at 17:39:26 (CET), Debian testing watch wrote:
> FYI: The status of the ffmpeg source package
> in Debian's testing distribution has changed.
>
> Previous version: 4:0.5+svn20090706-2
> Current version: 4:0.5+svn20090706-5
Finally, yay.
Andres, you offered to keep ffmpeg
On Do, Jan 28, 2010 at 10:41:10 (CET), Fabian Greffrath wrote:
> Am 26.01.2010 18:19, schrieb Reinhard Tartler:
>>> For people from the outside, who have a look at the package, however it
>>> will look somehow insane. I think a short comment (just the sentence I
>>> quoted from your previous mail
Am 26.01.2010 18:19, schrieb Reinhard Tartler:
For people from the outside, who have a look at the package, however it
will look somehow insane. I think a short comment (just the sentence I
quoted from your previous mail above) would be enough to convince
everyone, I guess.
please implement this
On Di, Jan 26, 2010 at 16:28:00 (CET), Fabian Greffrath wrote:
>> This could be a lintian bug, the whole situation maybe needs some more
>> thought: we generate the shlibs file twice: first time for the internal
>> dependencies, and then we regenerate them for inclusion in the
>> package. The poin
Am 26.01.2010 16:16, schrieb Reinhard Tartler:
This patch applies perfectly to upstream trunk/. Do you want to submit
it yourself? If not, I'll forward it.
I am not subscribed at upstream's lists and are thus rather unknown
there. Would you please...? ;)
--
Dipl.-Phys. Fabian Greffrath
Ruh
Am 26.01.2010 15:46, schrieb Reinhard Tartler:
would be great, but symbol files do not allow the same flexibilty as a
regular shlib file: We cannot implement alternative dependencies that
are required for the ffmpeg-extra with symbol files.
Ah yes, I forgot.
Which ones? can you compile a list
On Di, Jan 26, 2010 at 15:31:14 (CET), Fabian Greffrath wrote:
> Am 26.01.2010 15:23, schrieb Fabian Greffrath:
>> - The libraries contain some typos, should we fix them?
>
> I tried to leave the interface untouched.
This patch applies perfectly to upstream trunk/. Do you want to submit
it yourse
On Di, Jan 26, 2010 at 15:23:32 (CET), Fabian Greffrath wrote:
> Am 26.01.2010 13:50, schrieb Reinhard Tartler:
>> This would mean that we would need to redistribute the libavcodec
>> package under GPLv3. I guess this causes problems with packages with
>> incompatible licenses like GPLv2 (only) an
Am 26.01.2010 15:23, schrieb Fabian Greffrath:
- The libraries contain some typos, should we fix them?
I tried to leave the interface untouched.
--
Dipl.-Phys. Fabian Greffrath
Ruhr-Universität Bochum
Lehrstuhl für Energieanlagen und Energieprozesstechnik (LEAT)
Universitätsstr. 150, IB 3/13
Am 26.01.2010 13:50, schrieb Reinhard Tartler:
This would mean that we would need to redistribute the libavcodec
package under GPLv3. I guess this causes problems with packages with
incompatible licenses like GPLv2 (only) and similar.
Do you know of an GPL2-only application that links against f
On Di, Jan 26, 2010 at 13:35:17 (CET), Fabian Greffrath wrote:
> Am 25.01.2010 16:19, schrieb Reinhard Tartler:
>> Okay, I've now pushed my branch, it builds fine at least on my
>> laptop. Feel free to testbuild and comment on it.
>
> It's still building but looks like it works fine. It should be
Am 25.01.2010 16:19, schrieb Reinhard Tartler:
Okay, I've now pushed my branch, it builds fine at least on my
laptop. Feel free to testbuild and comment on it.
It's still building but looks like it works fine. It should be built
against the opencore-amr[nw]b packages on Debian, though.
If i
On Di, Jan 26, 2010 at 10:55:43 (CET), Fabian Greffrath wrote:
> Am 25.01.2010 16:19, schrieb Reinhard Tartler:
>> Okay, I've now pushed my branch, it builds fine at least on my
>> laptop. Feel free to testbuild and comment on it.
>
> Here it dies with:
>
> fatal: ambiguous argument
> refs/heads/p
Am 25.01.2010 16:19, schrieb Reinhard Tartler:
Okay, I've now pushed my branch, it builds fine at least on my
laptop. Feel free to testbuild and comment on it.
Here it dies with:
fatal: ambiguous argument
'refs/heads/pristine-tar:ffmpeg_0.6~~svn20100124.orig.tar.gz.delta':
unknown revision o
On Mo, Jan 25, 2010 at 12:38:07 (CET), Reinhard Tartler wrote:
>> Same here. I've become a bit less active recently, but if there's
>> something I can do to help and/or test, I'm of course there!
>
> Thanks. Just keep an eye on the 'master.snapshot' branch as soon as I
> push my commits there. I h
Am 25.01.2010 12:38, schrieb Reinhard Tartler:
Why should we? This would only make sense if we would want to make these
packages co-installable with the existing packages. I don't think this
is worth the efford.
This was misunderstanding, sorry, I placed my "+1" wrongly. I am not
for renaming
On Mo, Jan 25, 2010 at 10:53:59 (CET), Fabian Greffrath wrote:
> Am 24.01.2010 20:43, schrieb Andres Mejia:
>> Wouldn't it make more sense to continue with a version number
>> "0.5+svn"?
>> Not that it really matters to me, I'm just curious as to why "0.6" already?
>> Also, shouldn't the package
1 - 100 of 105 matches
Mail list logo
