On Tue, Dec 12, 2006 at 04:33:58PM +0100, A Mennucc wrote: > It is time to really delve into this. > > I do not think that this bug is "serious". > (I have actually the feeling that the severity for this bug is "wishlist". )
I have the feeling that you want to close it, but well it is only a feeling, so it does not matter... > Here are some reasonings: > > 1) It is true that the debian-policy asks for dynamic compilation, > whenever possible; > but the MPlayer team deprecate dynamic linking of ffmpeg: > dynamic linking is an experimental feature, it breaks many > postprocessing options; so it is not really supported. I never said that you *had* to compile mplayer dynamically with ffmpeg. Please see <http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=395252;msg=39>. The ideal situation is to have the same ffmpeg code base for every packages which use it, be it dynamically or statically. > What you are asking for is not a feature currently > sported by MPlayer; as such, your request is "severity:wishlist". > If you want dynamic linking in MPlayer, you are free to work on it > until it works flawlessly, and send me a patch. Sure, but I do not really want a dynamically built mplayer. > 2) Never AFAIK was there a "release goal" of > "all packages must compile with external ffmpeg" No, but it is common sense not to embed and duplicate code in a distro, because it is a nightmare for the security team. I believe that I will not be demised on this... > 3) You never opened a serious bug against gst-ffmpeg > although gst-ffmpeg is linked with an internal static ffmpeg. Josselin Mouette worked on a patch to solve that. It is another matter and as I do not use gstreamer, I lack of interest for it, unlike mplayer which I often use. > And I do not think that you are entitled to claim that severity is > "serious". <Snip ad hominem bashing...> Okay, then let's ask an official statement from the security team to resolve the issue. > Aurélien GÉRÔME wrote: > > Sure, I got that. Fine, the shame on me is my punishment for having > > wanted to get a compromise. :) > > Compromise? > > I am the guy that does try to find compromises. > > I am the guy who spent many years to find a compromise to let MPlayer > into Debian - in the end, I even agreed to remove mencoder "for fear of > patent problems", although most of the encoding stuff is in ffmpeg and > that is already in Debian. And I commend you for that. > Your (repeated) example of compromise is > "echo severity serious | mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]". "repeated"? This is a false accusation. The initial serious severity is from me (the submitter), the following serious severity is from Moritz (on the control bot), and the last one is from me (also on the control bot). That last one is what I call the compromise: the compromise of letting mplayer go to testing, but with an etch-ignore-tagged RC bug. However, I was unaware of the authority to wield the etch-ignore tag, since I saw someone who was not RM wield it. Mea culpa. > I see nothing to cheer about So do I. -- .''`. Aurélien GÉRÔME : :' : `. `'` Free Software Developer `- Unix Sys & Net Admin
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
