Bug#1005899: mplayer: should not release with bookworm
On 2022-12-30 01:48:56 +0100, Lorenzo wrote: > Hi Sebastian, > > Could you please clarify if this package should be maintained inside the > Debian-Multimedia Team or outside? I.e. an uploader or a new maintainer? Whatever the new maintainer prefers. The multimedia team always is happy to welcome new contributors. Cheers -- Sebastian Ramacher
Bug#1005899: mplayer: should not release with bookworm
Hi Sebastian, Could you please clarify if this package should be maintained inside the Debian-Multimedia Team or outside? I.e. an uploader or a new maintainer? Regards, Lorenzo On Wed, 16 Feb 2022 23:25:00 +0100 Sebastian Ramacher wrote: > Source: mplayer > Version: 2:1.4+ds1-3 > Severity: serious > X-Debbugs-Cc: sramac...@debian.org > Tags: sid bookworm > > Let's stop pretending that mplayer is maintained. The upstream mailing > list infrastructure is gone and development has been minimal over the > last couple of months and years. So I think we should not include > mplayer in bookworm. mpv is a worthy replacement for mplayer. > > Cheers > -- > Sebastian Ramacher
Bug#1005899: mplayer: should not release with bookworm
Am 21.10.2022 12:36, schrieb Tj: I require mencoder specifically to handle some old legacy format conversion where I found ffmpeg fails despite many attempts to work around the issues with various command-line options. Ever considered reporting these issues to the ffmpeg project? - Fabian
Bug#1005899: mplayer: should not release with bookworm
On Wed, 16 Mar 2022 20:09:59 +0100 Diederik de Haas wrote: On 16 Feb 2022 23:25:00 +0100 Sebastian Ramacher wrote: > Source: mplayer > Version: 2:1.4+ds1-3 > Severity: serious > Tags: sid bookworm > > I think we should not include mplayer in bookworm. > mpv is a worthy replacement for mplayer. I just found this report whilst doing a buster > bookworm full-upgrade. I have both mplayer and mencoder installed and both were listed for removal. I require mencoder specifically to handle some old legacy format conversion where I found ffmpeg fails despite many attempts to work around the issues with various command-line options. Specifically RealMedia multi-stream formats originally recorded in the 1999-2004 time-frame.
Bug#1005899: mplayer: should not release with bookworm
On 16 Feb 2022 23:25:00 +0100 Sebastian Ramacher wrote: > Source: mplayer > Version: 2:1.4+ds1-3 > Severity: serious > Tags: sid bookworm > > I think we should not include mplayer in bookworm. > mpv is a worthy replacement for mplayer. I do use mpv to play ~ all my video files, but I also wrote the following in January of *2022* (in ~/docs/Multimedia.md): Apparently you can dump the video files belonging to one episode using VLC, but that was rather cumbersome and it wasn't very clear to me what it did or what I should do. Luckily, ``mplayer`` is (still) packaged for Debian and with that, one can dump a whole episode into a single VOB file: ``$ mplayer dvd://2 -dvd-device ALIAS_SEASON_1D1.iso -v -dumpstream -dumpfile S01E02.vob`` The value after ``dvd://`` is the Title number that ``lsdvd`` showed us earlier. So I'm glad that several people indicated they wanted to improve mplayer in Debian and I'll try to 'chip in' when I have some free time. Cheers, Diederik signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
Bug#1005899: mplayer: should not release with bookworm
Reimar Döffinger writes ("Re: Bug#1005899: mplayer: should not release with
bookworm"):
>
> These are definitely fixed in 1.5, and the fix for giflib should be not hard
> to cherry-pick for 1.4 if there is a need.
>
> > and #958865 (crash on theora) really ought
> > to be fixed too.
>
> I could never reproduce it, but it could be I never tested 1.4 Debian build.
> But chances are this is fixed by 1.5 at least.
Interesting, thanks.
> > If we had a maintainer who is able to deal with
> > those, and also deal with some of the outstanding bug gardening, then
> > we could conclude that mplayer ought to stay.
>
> I am completely unfamiliar with the Debian processes and doubt I have time to
> learn (and interacting with the bug tracker seems supremely painful and
> confusing to me).
> So I also don't know what exactly is needed.
> But if it's just about debugging/fixing bugs or finding patches to
> cherry-pick I am here, and as said the lists are also there, as is MPlayer's
> trac bug tracker (though not that actively monitored, so would need to ping
> me for a fast response).
I think what is needed is precisely for someone to volunteer to do the
bug gardening, coordination work, routine package maintenance, and so
on.
That doesn't require a Debian *expert*, but it does require a basic
level of Debian knowledge (or the time to get stuck in and learn).
While the maintainer role doesn't ahve to be a deep programming role,
it does take time and energy. Sadly at the moment I don't think we
have a prospective maintainer for mplayer in Debian.
As I say, should someone come forward who wants to do this work, I
would be happy to sponsor their uploads, so it doesn't have to be
someone with formal status (eg Debian Project Member aka DD). And
Sebastian has said someone who wants to be steward of mplayer in
Debian would be welcome to take over ownership of the package.
Best wishes,
Ian.
--
Ian JacksonThese opinions are my own.
Pronouns: they/he. If I emailed you from @fyvzl.net or @evade.org.uk,
that is a private address which bypasses my fierce spamfilter.
Bug#1005899: mplayer: should not release with bookworm
> On 28 Feb 2022, at 19:12, Ian Jackson wrote: > It seems to me that at #1004579 (ffmpeg 5.0) and #939032 (giflib) > would need to be addressed, These are definitely fixed in 1.5, and the fix for giflib should be not hard to cherry-pick for 1.4 if there is a need. > and #958865 (crash on theora) really ought > to be fixed too. I could never reproduce it, but it could be I never tested 1.4 Debian build. But chances are this is fixed by 1.5 at least. > If we had a maintainer who is able to deal with > those, and also deal with some of the outstanding bug gardening, then > we could conclude that mplayer ought to stay. I am completely unfamiliar with the Debian processes and doubt I have time to learn (and interacting with the bug tracker seems supremely painful and confusing to me). So I also don't know what exactly is needed. But if it's just about debugging/fixing bugs or finding patches to cherry-pick I am here, and as said the lists are also there, as is MPlayer's trac bug tracker (though not that actively monitored, so would need to ping me for a fast response). Best regards, Reimar
Bug#1005899: mplayer: should not release with bookworm
On 2022-02-28 18:12:27, Ian Jackson wrote: > This bug came to my attention as a user of mplayer, due to the testing > autoremoval which is the consequence of an RC bug. > > I tried Sebastian Ramacher's suggested alternative of `mpv` and, > speaking entirely personally, it would do OK for me as a replacement > for mplayer. It seems to have many of the same advantages over other > programs (eg vlc), for me. > > But: > > I have to say that I found the original report in this bug rather > unfriendly in tone. Removing things is usually regrettable - at the > very least, there will usually be people who are going to be upset. > And an RC bug like this has very high visibility and will draw the > attention of people without much of the context. As I am effectively its last maintainer, the original bug report describes mplayers state in Debian: it is not maintained. And it hasn't been since 2018 (or even 2016 which saw the last maintainer upload). > A message which was kinder about mplayer, and which more positively > spoke of the advantages of mpv, would have avoided darkening my day > today. > > > I had a look at the bug list in Debian and it doesn't seem to have > insuperable problems. I'm not able to commit substantial amounts of > time but I wouldn't want this package to fall out of Debian just > because no-one with the appropriate permissions is available to > support people who want to do the actual maintenance. So I hereby > volunteer to sponsor uploads. > > It seems to me that at #1004579 (ffmpeg 5.0) and #939032 (giflib) > would need to be addressed, and #958865 (crash on theora) really ought > to be fixed too. If we had a maintainer who is able to deal with > those, and also deal with some of the outstanding bug gardening, then > we could conclude that mplayer ought to stay. Please feel free to take over. Cheers -- Sebastian Ramacher
Bug#1005899: mplayer: should not release with bookworm
This bug came to my attention as a user of mplayer, due to the testing autoremoval which is the consequence of an RC bug. I tried Sebastian Ramacher's suggested alternative of `mpv` and, speaking entirely personally, it would do OK for me as a replacement for mplayer. It seems to have many of the same advantages over other programs (eg vlc), for me. But: I have to say that I found the original report in this bug rather unfriendly in tone. Removing things is usually regrettable - at the very least, there will usually be people who are going to be upset. And an RC bug like this has very high visibility and will draw the attention of people without much of the context. A message which was kinder about mplayer, and which more positively spoke of the advantages of mpv, would have avoided darkening my day today. I had a look at the bug list in Debian and it doesn't seem to have insuperable problems. I'm not able to commit substantial amounts of time but I wouldn't want this package to fall out of Debian just because no-one with the appropriate permissions is available to support people who want to do the actual maintenance. So I hereby volunteer to sponsor uploads. It seems to me that at #1004579 (ffmpeg 5.0) and #939032 (giflib) would need to be addressed, and #958865 (crash on theora) really ought to be fixed too. If we had a maintainer who is able to deal with those, and also deal with some of the outstanding bug gardening, then we could conclude that mplayer ought to stay. Thanks, Ian. -- Ian JacksonThese opinions are my own. Pronouns: they/he. If I emailed you from @fyvzl.net or @evade.org.uk, that is a private address which bypasses my fierce spamfilter.
Bug#1005899: mplayer: should not release with bookworm
On Thu, Feb 17, 2022 at 08:45:59PM +0100, Sebastian Ramacher wrote: > On 2022-02-17 19:13:08 +0100, Reimar Döffinger wrote: > > > > > On 16 Feb 2022, at 23:25, Sebastian Ramacher wrote: > > > > > > Let's stop pretending that mplayer is maintained. > > > > What is your criteria for "maintained"? In Debian or upstream? Upstream > > issues are still addressed from time to time, there are still several > > people around that can address issues, in particular security issues. > > It's definitely not maintained in Debian. Looking at the recent history > of mplayer uploads, I did most of them without any bug triaging. So > that's not what I would consider mplaer being maintained. As to the bugs, I have looked through them from time to time and they all looked outdated, were not reproducible or definitely not relevant anymore (like G3 PowerPC). I didn't want to meddle with them beyond a quick check as I don't know much about the process. > If you want to pick up maintenance of mplayer in Debian, please feel > free do that. I asked one person with at least some knowledge about all that, but they seemed to think that Debian requirements are too high relative to the time they have available. > > > The upstream mailing > > > list infrastructure is gone > > > > I have absolutely no idea why you claim that. > > It's there and working. > > Yesterday evening lists.mplayerhq.hu failed to resolve. Otherwise I > would have forwarded the build failure with ffmpeg 5.0. In the end, this > will need to be fixed for bookworm. Compilation with FFmpeg 5.0 has been fixed since a while in our repo. Finally we've also built the release packages, though not done the final steps for releasing yet (download links etc). http://mplayerhq.hu/MPlayer/releases/MPlayer-1.5.tar.xz is the release that supports FFmpeg 5.0
Bug#1005899: mplayer: should not release with bookworm
On 2022-02-17 19:13:08 +0100, Reimar Döffinger wrote: > > > On 16 Feb 2022, at 23:25, Sebastian Ramacher wrote: > > > > Let's stop pretending that mplayer is maintained. > > What is your criteria for "maintained"? In Debian or upstream? Upstream > issues are still addressed from time to time, there are still several people > around that can address issues, in particular security issues. It's definitely not maintained in Debian. Looking at the recent history of mplayer uploads, I did most of them without any bug triaging. So that's not what I would consider mplaer being maintained. If you want to pick up maintenance of mplayer in Debian, please feel free do that. > > The upstream mailing > > list infrastructure is gone > > I have absolutely no idea why you claim that. > It's there and working. Yesterday evening lists.mplayerhq.hu failed to resolve. Otherwise I would have forwarded the build failure with ffmpeg 5.0. In the end, this will need to be fixed for bookworm. Cheers > > > and development has been minimal over the > > last couple of months and years. > > It's mostly in maintenance mode I guess. > There might be Debian users who don't mind their software changing radically > as long as it keeps doing what they've used it for the previous years... > > > So I think we should not include > > mplayer in bookworm. mpv is a worthy replacement for mplayer. > > Possibly, though it's not a drop-in replacement (different command-line) and > supposedly it aims more at modern computers, so might not be so great a > replacement for legacy hardware. > > Best regards, > Reimar Döffinger -- Sebastian Ramacher signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Bug#1005899: mplayer: should not release with bookworm
> On 16 Feb 2022, at 23:25, Sebastian Ramacher wrote: > > Let's stop pretending that mplayer is maintained. What is your criteria for "maintained"? In Debian or upstream? Upstream issues are still addressed from time to time, there are still several people around that can address issues, in particular security issues. > The upstream mailing > list infrastructure is gone I have absolutely no idea why you claim that. It's there and working. > and development has been minimal over the > last couple of months and years. It's mostly in maintenance mode I guess. There might be Debian users who don't mind their software changing radically as long as it keeps doing what they've used it for the previous years... > So I think we should not include > mplayer in bookworm. mpv is a worthy replacement for mplayer. Possibly, though it's not a drop-in replacement (different command-line) and supposedly it aims more at modern computers, so might not be so great a replacement for legacy hardware. Best regards, Reimar Döffinger
Bug#1005899: mplayer: should not release with bookworm
Source: mplayer Version: 2:1.4+ds1-3 Severity: serious X-Debbugs-Cc: sramac...@debian.org Tags: sid bookworm Let's stop pretending that mplayer is maintained. The upstream mailing list infrastructure is gone and development has been minimal over the last couple of months and years. So I think we should not include mplayer in bookworm. mpv is a worthy replacement for mplayer. Cheers -- Sebastian Ramacher signature.asc Description: PGP signature
