On Sat, Jan 21, 2006 at 04:07:51PM +1000, Andrew Pollock wrote:
On Sat, Jan 21, 2006 at 06:06:36AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
On Fri, Jan 20, 2006 at 12:08:39PM -0500, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
aj@azure.humbug.org.au wrote:
mplayer has had an explicit warning from upstream that it's
Andrew writes:
Aren't we in a similar situation with other stuff that is in main
already? rsync springs to mind.
Don't forget the Linux kernel.
--
John Hasler
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Nathanael Nerode [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
aj@azure.humbug.org.au:
[...]
Contrast rte, where the ftpmasters told Marillat exactly what he needed to
remove to get the package in Debian, and he didn't do it, and declared that
he would keep uploading it. Leaving *that* in limbo is totally
On 10540 March 1977, Christian Marillat wrote:
Contrast rte, where the ftpmasters told Marillat exactly what he needed to
remove to get the package in Debian, and he didn't do it, and declared that
he would keep uploading it. Leaving *that* in limbo is totally reasonable.
I've *never*
I wrote:
Contrast rte, where the ftpmasters told Marillat exactly what he needed to
remove to get the package in Debian, and he didn't do it, and declared that
he would keep uploading it. Leaving *that* in limbo is totally reasonable.
Christian Marillat wrote:
I've *never* received any
Joerg Jaspert [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On 10540 March 1977, Christian Marillat wrote:
Contrast rte, where the ftpmasters told Marillat exactly what he needed to
remove to get the package in Debian, and he didn't do it, and declared that
he would keep uploading it. Leaving *that* in limbo
aj@azure.humbug.org.au wrote:
mplayer has had an explicit warning from upstream that it's patented;
The proposed tarball for Debian has stuff excised left and right in
order to guarantee legality. Just check that the patented stuff was
excised, right?
Alternatively, I would be quite happy with
On 10540 March 1977, Christian Marillat wrote:
Right, you've got a list of reasons why it got rejected and half
of that is still true.
I still don't see why rte can't enter in main, when ffmpeg is already
in main and does the same.
Two bads doesnt make one good, so we stay with one
On Fri, 2006-01-20 at 22:29 +0100, Joerg Jaspert wrote:
On 10540 March 1977, Christian Marillat wrote:
Right, you've got a list of reasons why it got rejected and half
of that is still true.
I still don't see why rte can't enter in main, when ffmpeg is already
in main and does
On Fri, Jan 20, 2006 at 12:08:39PM -0500, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
aj@azure.humbug.org.au wrote:
mplayer has had an explicit warning from upstream that it's patented;
The proposed tarball for Debian has stuff excised left and right in
order to guarantee legality. Just check that the patented
On Sat, Jan 21, 2006 at 06:06:36AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
On Fri, Jan 20, 2006 at 12:08:39PM -0500, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
aj@azure.humbug.org.au wrote:
mplayer has had an explicit warning from upstream that it's patented;
The proposed tarball for Debian has stuff excised left and
* Anthony Towns aj@azure.humbug.org.au [2006-01-21 06:06:36]:
No, we have real problems with video codec stuff in Debian and they need
to be resolved thoroughly, not expediently.
i was under the impression that the ftp-master team had started
to work on that several month ago, shortly before
[Eric Dorland]
This has probably been covered ad nauseum, but where do we stand in
respect to getting mplayer in Debian?
[Nathanael Nerode]
IIRC, the copyright issues were carefully worked out and solved
after several years, finally reaching the approval of debian-legal.
At which point it
On Thu, Jan 19, 2006 at 11:08:42AM +0100, Petter Reinholdtsen wrote:
[Eric Dorland]
This has probably been covered ad nauseum, but where do we stand in
respect to getting mplayer in Debian?
[Nathanael Nerode]
IIRC, the copyright issues were carefully worked out and solved
after several
aj@azure.humbug.org.au:
MJ Ray's already done such a summary; it's rather trivially inadequate,
due to the information its summarising being equally inadequate.
http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2005/12/msg00901.html
So the summary amounts to patents. Is that right? In other words,
Apologies to AJ and the ftpmasters. I found the *important* part of the
thread, which I'd apparently missed during December, in which the
ftpmasters...
drumroll
explain what would be needed for mplayer to go into Debian now, barring
finding additional problems.
Congrats Jeroen van
On 10539 March 1977, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
Congrats Jeroen van Wolfellaar, ftpmaster extraordinare, not afraid to take
on
the difficult cases (he also managed the REJECT on rte IRRC).
Nope, he didnt reject rte.
--
bye Joerg
16. What should you do if a security bug is discovered in one
On Jan 19, Nathanael Nerode [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Is there an objection, or shall I file a serious bug against ffmpeg?
Yes, I object to asking for removal of MPEG encoders because there is no
good reason to do it.
--
ciao,
Marco
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
Le jeudi 19 janvier 2006 à 15:15 -0500, Nathanael Nerode a écrit :
Is there an objection, or shall I file a serious bug against ffmpeg?
The ffmpeg package doesn't include any faad, mp3, or other encoders for
which patents are actively enforced. Therefore there is no reason to
remove it from
On Thu, Jan 19, 2006 at 03:15:46PM -0500, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
And to reiterate:
If Debian wants to be legally safe w.r.t. mpeg encoder patents, removing some
mpeg encoders and not others -- when the others have been pointed out -- is
really a bad idea.
Nathanael, stop trying to make
Eric Dorland [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
This has probably been covered ad nauseum, but where do we stand in
respect to getting mplayer in Debian?
IIRC, the copyright issues were carefully worked out and solved after several
years, finally reaching the approval of debian-legal. At which point it
hi everybody
a new version of mplayer 1.0pre7try2 is available ; add either
for the etch version, the line
deb http://tonelli.sns.it/pub/mplayer/etch ./
or
for the sarge version, the line
deb http://tonelli.sns.it/pub/mplayer/sarge ./
to /etc/apt/source.list .
a.
signature.asc
* A Mennucc ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
hi everybody
a new version of mplayer 1.0pre7try2 is available ; add either
for the etch version, the line
deb http://tonelli.sns.it/pub/mplayer/etch ./
or
for the sarge version, the line
deb http://tonelli.sns.it/pub/mplayer/sarge ./
On Mon, Jan 16, 2006 at 06:27:40PM +0100, A Mennucc wrote:
hi everybody
a new version of mplayer 1.0pre7try2 is available ; add either
for the etch version, the line
deb http://tonelli.sns.it/pub/mplayer/etch ./
or
for the sarge version, the line
deb
A Mennucc wrote:
hi everybody
a new version of mplayer 1.0pre7try2 is available ; add either
for the etch version, the line
deb http://tonelli.sns.it/pub/mplayer/etch ./
Hi!
Now we have mplayer in this repositories:
http://tonelli.sns.it/pub/mplayer/etch
25 matches
Mail list logo
