On Tue, Dec 12, 2006 at 08:03:24PM +0100, Josselin Mouette wrote: > I kindly ask the Technical Committee to rule on the gstreamer0.10-ffmpeg > case.
> The gstreamer0.10-ffmpeg package includes its own private ffmpeg copy > and is built against it. Upstream's rationale is that ffmpeg's API and > ABI aren't stable and that they need a frozen version. Linking to > another ffmpeg version often requires changes to the code and means the > software cannot be as widely tested as the upstream version. > However, the multiple copies of ffmpeg in the archive have been > responsible for a security nightmare during the sarge stable cycle. The > security team has asked to replace all such private copies by dynamic > linking to the debian ffmpeg packages. For example, this is holding > mplayer out of etch. > As I explained in the following thread: > http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2006/12/msg00138.html > linking to this ffmpeg version is not very complicated, and I asked the > maintainers to migrate to it before the etch release. I submitted bug > #402090 which contains a clean patch that I'm also in the process to > make accepted upstream. > However the maintainer does not want any such change before the release, > and it turned out soon that we would not come to an agreement on this > matter. Which is why I'm forwarding this issue to the Technical > Committee. It is my understanding that this is a request to override the decision of the gst-ffmpeg maintainer, under 6.1.4. Given that neither the security team nor the release team has weighed in with a statement that the package is unsupportable in its present state, I don't believe the technical committee should override the maintainer either. Regards, -- Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world. [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.debian.org/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]