On Qua, 2014-11-05 at 07:33 +0100, Julian Sikorski wrote: > W dniu 05.11.2014 o 03:55, Sérgio Basto pisze: > > On Dom, 2014-11-02 at 08:02 +0100, Julian Sikorski wrote: > >> W dniu 15.10.2014 o 07:42, Julian Sikorski pisze: > >>> W dniu 15.10.2014 o 00:38, Sérgio Basto pisze: > >>>> Hi, > >>>> > >>>> On Ter, 2014-10-07 at 08:02 +0200, Julian Sikorski wrote: > >>>>>> > >>>>> Please be advised that 2.3 was recently removed from the maintained > >>>>> branches list: > >>>>> > >>>>> https://ffmpeg.org/pipermail/ffmpeg-devel/2014-September/162904.html > >>>>> > >>>>> Thus, if we ever rebase F-20, we should use 2.2 and not 2.3. > >>>> > >>>> The mode I like to work and to coordinate the mass rebuild for a stable > >>>> branch (F-20), is first be test in devel . We have packages in devel, we > >>>> test it for some time and when we can say that are stable , so we could > >>>> *copy* to F-20 , another point was: mass rebuild was for ffmpeg/x264 , > >>>> not only ffmpeg . > >>>> So it is important have .specs for packages that compile in all Fedora > >>>> releases. Having 2 trees, one for F20, other for devel , is just > >>>> justified when is a very core package like udev or systemd ... , but > >>>> for rpmfusion the point is other, maintainers are not aware ... > >>>> So *theoretically* my solution was build ffmpeg 2.2 in devel, test it > >>>> and copy to F-20 , but devel already have 2.3 so is not practical . > >>>> > >>>> Moving forward, just update "ffmpeg" on F20 seems to me acceptable , > >>>> like you wrote "only libavfilter has a soname bump (snip) This means > >>>> that we really only need to rebuild dvdstyler, mpv and xbmc." but we > >>>> miss the test phase, we need guarantee that ffmpeg version was tested , > >>>> any suggestion ? > >>> > >>> ffmpeg-2.2 was in devel between March and August. Moreover, the reason > >>> why upstream picked it over 2.3 was that it is used by more downstream > >>> distros: OpenSUSE, SUSE Enterprise and ROSA [1]. If we let it sit in > >>> -testing for a bit longer than usual, I believe this will be enough. > >>> > >>>> > >>>> Saying that and giving up mass rebuild ffmpeg/x264 for F-20, no need > >>>> preserve devel as is and we can do the mass rebuild for ffmpeg 2.4 on > >>>> devel , anything pending ? > >>> > >>> I don't think anything has changed since last time: dvbcut and > >>> kmediafactory fail to rebuild, vlc needs a patch, everything else builds > >>> fine. David Timms was working on making dvbcut work, but I have not > >>> heard from him regarding whether he was successful. > >>> > >>>> > >>>> BTW what packages (.spec) do you have ? that are different from stable > >>>> branches to devel ? > >>> > >>> Only ffmpeg and mplayer. ffmpeg due to its numerous dependencies, and > >>> mplayer because it is highly dependent on ffmpeg. > >>> > >>>> > >>>> Thanks and best regards, > >>>> > >>> > >>> Thank you. > >>> > >>> [1] https://trac.ffmpeg.org/wiki/Downstreams > >>> > >> Where do we stand on this? > > > > I don't change must what I wrote : > > "Update ffmpeg on F20 seems to me acceptable ,like you wrote "only > > libavfilter has a soname bump ... This means that we really only need to > > rebuild dvdstyler, mpv and xbmc." > > > > I think you should decide and we need authorization from kwizart . > > > > you don't want rebuild others deps right ? > > > > > > cheers > > > I think we should go do it. 2.1 has not seen a release in months which > means there might be unfixed security issues in it. > I would only rebuild what we need to (dvdstyler, mpv and xbmc).
yes , we can use security police , we need update ffmpeg to 2.2.10 on Fedora 20 , due security concerns . kwizart, may we do this update ?, we need your authorization, I will rebuild dvdstyler, mpv and xbmc . I'm going test it meanwhile . Thanks, -- Sérgio M. B.
