Re: mplayer, the time has come
On Wed, Mar 02, 2005 at 02:20:29PM -0500, Brendan wrote: > On Friday 25 February 2005 05:39 am, Ron Johnson wrote: > > On Fri, 2005-02-25 at 10:36 +0100, Marco d'Itri wrote: > > > On Feb 25, giskard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > many people who I know, especially artists who use free software, often > > > > use the reproduction in ascii art (new kind of art). > > > > > > The artists you know are not many people and they are not representative > > > of the user base in any way. > > > > "I just don't understand how Reagan got elected. No one I know > > voted for him!" > > > > In other words, just because *you* don't know anyone who uses AA, > > that doesn't mean that a decent number of people *do* use AA. > > I have already decided to just compile mplayer myself. Too many weird > decisions on this package being made for me...didn't even play half of my > movies. Fortunately, Andrea is packaging mplayer to fit the requirement for inclusion in Debian, not just for your personnal consumption. Cheers, -- Bill. <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Imagine a large red swirl here. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: mplayer, the time has come
On Friday 25 February 2005 05:39 am, Ron Johnson wrote: > On Fri, 2005-02-25 at 10:36 +0100, Marco d'Itri wrote: > > On Feb 25, giskard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > many people who I know, especially artists who use free software, often > > > use the reproduction in ascii art (new kind of art). > > > > The artists you know are not many people and they are not representative > > of the user base in any way. > > "I just don't understand how Reagan got elected. No one I know > voted for him!" > > In other words, just because *you* don't know anyone who uses AA, > that doesn't mean that a decent number of people *do* use AA. I have already decided to just compile mplayer myself. Too many weird decisions on this package being made for me...didn't even play half of my movies. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: mplayer, the time has come
On Mon, Feb 28, 2005 at 01:29:03PM +0100, Sebastien NOEL wrote: > > I don't know how many times this can be said: non-us is *not a > > solution* to patents affecting the US, and never has been. > > and what now ? > > ok non-us is not the solution. but does it mean that there is no > solution at all ? > Wait for sarge to become stable and discuss later, juste like xorg, amd64... Cédric De Wilde -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: mplayer, the time has come
A Mennucc wrote: > and there are wonderful feats that 'mplayer' that do not need : decss, > faad, lame & xvid Why should Debian's mplayer be unable to support XVID? The MPEG4 codec from libavcodec will play any XVID just fine and libavcodec is already part of Debian in xine-lib and ffmpeg. Cheers, Moritz -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: mplayer, the time has come
On Thu, 24 Feb 2005 19:40:35 -0500, you wrote: > > (according to /usr/share/doc/ffmpeg/patents.txt.gz) > I hope that isn't a file with descriptions of patents--anyone who > reads such a thing would risk increased patent liability. I'd rather > not look for myself to find out, though. omfg. it's not possible. you're a fake, you don't really exist ? I put a pointer to you where you will be able to find more information and the only reaction is "you are stupid, i'm not going to read this and i don't want to know more about that" whow > That said, are the patents supposedly affecting libfaad2 actively > being enforced? Read The Fucking File > I don't know how many times this can be said: non-us is *not a > solution* to patents affecting the US, and never has been. and what now ? ok non-us is not the solution. but does it mean that there is no solution at all ? Sebastien NOEL signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: mplayer, the time has come
On Mon, 28 Feb 2005 10:19:37 +0100 A Mennucc <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >* Why the "--disable-mencoder" in debian/rules ? > > > my original thought was : > since LAME is not in Debian , then 'mencoder' will not be very useful > > but then some people pointed out that there are many interesting things > that can > be done with mencoder that do not need LAME > > so my next packaging will have 'mencoder' ok, thanks you > >* Why the "--disable-aa" ? > >Ok caca is better than aa but it's not enabled either. > > > I received some e-mail from upstream authors suggesting that AA was a > nice trick > but it may be removed from my packaging > > anyway it seems that '-vo sdl:aa ' will work as well ok, but can you take a look at libcaca support please ? > >* You build libavcodec and libavformat but that seems to me a waste of > >time. > >FFmpeg is already in main, why not only link mplayer with > >libavcodec.a (libavcodec-dev) and libavformat.a (libavformat-dev) ? > > > > > > > choice of upstream : AFAICR a monolithic 'mplayer' improves performances Paul Hampson was faster than me for this point. (but finally, i don't know if it is a good idea because ffmpeg was configured with '--disable-mmx') > answer of 1 DD: on the other hand, without any kind of mplayer, Debian > is at a loss [agree] Regards, Sebastien NOEL pgpt9Cfm3CvAJ.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: mplayer, the time has come
On Mon, Feb 28, 2005 at 10:19:37AM +0100, A Mennucc wrote:
> Sebastien NOEL wrote:
> >I have some questions about your package:
> >* You build libavcodec and libavformat but that seems to me a waste of
> >time.
> > FFmpeg is already in main, why not only link mplayer with
> > libavcodec.a (libavcodec-dev) and libavformat.a (libavformat-dev) ?
> choice of upstream : AFAICR a monolithic 'mplayer' improves performances
You've missed the point. If you use the libavcodec-dev and
libavformat-dev packages in Debian, you _get_ a monolithic
mplayer. Those packages only contain the static libraries,
which are linked in at compile time, since the packager has
chosen to not produce dynamic libraries for these two libraries
(for a different reason, I suspect, to do with the fluidity of
the libraries' APIs)
And even if libav{codec,format} had shared libraries in Debian,
the static versions in the -dev could be linked in, and I
understand that's the default way mplayer's configure script
accesses external libav{codec,format}.
If you use the ones in Debian, that's one less thing people
need to recompile to rebuild mplayer, like using external
libflac, libsdl etc, and it's easier to rebuild a local
mplayer with the latest lib{avcodec,format} versions, assuming
the packager of those is tracking CVS closely.
--
---
Paul "TBBle" Hampson, MCSE
8th year CompSci/Asian Studies student, ANU
The Boss, Bubblesworth Pty Ltd (ABN: 51 095 284 361)
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
"No survivors? Then where do the stories come from I wonder?"
-- Capt. Jack Sparrow, "Pirates of the Caribbean"
This email is licensed to the recipient for non-commercial
use, duplication and distribution.
---
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
Re: mplayer, the time has come
Sebastien NOEL wrote: I have some questions about your package: * Why the "--disable-mencoder" in debian/rules ? my original thought was : since LAME is not in Debian , then 'mencoder' will not be very useful but then some people pointed out that there are many interesting things that can be done with mencoder that do not need LAME so my next packaging will have 'mencoder' * Why the "--disable-aa" ? Ok caca is better than aa but it's not enabled either. I received some e-mail from upstream authors suggesting that AA was a nice trick but it may be removed from my packaging anyway it seems that '-vo sdl:aa ' will work as well * You build libavcodec and libavformat but that seems to me a waste of time. FFmpeg is already in main, why not only link mplayer with libavcodec.a (libavcodec-dev) and libavformat.a (libavformat-dev) ? choice of upstream : AFAICR a monolithic 'mplayer' improves performances btw: this is what Linus Torvalds decided with the kernel; methinks that a smaller kernel with a stable API for loading other minor services (ham radio, USB gadgets , etc) would be much better, but thats another (long) story. And, yes , I know that linux has modules, no, I dont think that they satisfy the above requisite: currently linux is too big and too complex for my tastes: it takes ages to download it, configure it and compile it. It forces distributions to: either offer a complete kernel that will satisfy all tastes, and that is huge; or have people recompile it (and this means, understand its myriad of options). Qestion to all DD: Without decss, faad, lame & xvid, mplayer insn't really mplayer. answer of 1 DD: on the other hand, without any kind of mplayer, Debian is at a loss and there are wonderful feats that 'mplayer' that do not need : decss, faad, lame & xvid bye a. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: mplayer, the time has come
#include * giskard [Fri, Feb 25 2005, 01:22:18PM]: > > Those who want to use the aa backend can use -vo sdl:aa if > > libsdl1.2debian-all is installed (and the mplayer package is compiled > > with sdl support). > > [13:11:3Size: [EMAIL PROTECTED]:~]$ apt-cache show > libsdl1.2debian-all > Depends: aalib1 > Size: 184960 > > [13:11:[EMAIL PROTECTED]:~]$ apt-cache show aalib1 > Size: 53524 And you point is...? I think 0.1% (guessed) of users that may need AA support can live with extra 185kb in favor of 99.9% users saving that space. Eduard. -- OpenBSD fails miserably in this respect, and makes for an example of how NOT to work with the community on security issues. Their approach is, roughly, "we fixed this a while ago but didn't tell anyone, so you're vulnerable and we're not, ha-ha-ha". -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: mplayer, the time has come
On Fri, 25 Feb 2005 12:38:39 +0200 Petri Latvala <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Fri, Feb 25, 2005 at 10:36:21AM +0100, Marco d'Itri wrote: > > On Feb 25, giskard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > many people who I know, especially artists who use free software, > > > often use the reproduction in ascii art (new kind of art). > > The artists you know are not many people and they are not > > representative of the user base in any way. > > > Those who want to use the aa backend can use -vo sdl:aa if > libsdl1.2debian-all is installed (and the mplayer package is compiled > with sdl support). [13:11:3Size: [EMAIL PROTECTED]:~]$ apt-cache show libsdl1.2debian-all Depends: aalib1 Size: 184960 [13:11:[EMAIL PROTECTED]:~]$ apt-cache show aalib1 Size: 53524 and: [13:18:[EMAIL PROTECTED]:~]$ apt-cache rdepends libsdl1.2debian-all libsdl1.2debian-all Reverse Depends: libsdl1.2debian-oss libsdl1.2debian-oss libsdl1.2debian-nas libsdl1.2debian-nas libsdl1.2debian-esd libsdl1.2debian-esd libsdl1.2debian-arts libsdl1.2debian-arts libsdl1.2debian-alsa libsdl1.2debian-alsa |libsdl1.2debian . -- ciao giskard spero nel ritorno del grande bastardo. pgpiMBWVGH6gG.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: mplayer, the time has come
On Fri, 25 Feb 2005 10:36:21 +0100 [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Marco d'Itri) wrote: > On Feb 25, giskard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > many people who I know, especially artists who use free software, > > often use the reproduction in ascii art (new kind of art). > The artists you know are not many people and they are not > representative of the user base in any way. ok. just for this we cannot decide if a compile-option is useful for all people or not. (excluding security options). probably it could be intended as a new kind of discrimination? btw she saw the light: l'ascii art è l'arte degli "hacker" ascii art is the art of "hacker" -- ciao giskard spero nel ritorno del grande bastardo. pgpGsnAx7OADs.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: mplayer, the time has come
[Ron Johnson] > "I just don't understand how Reagan got elected. No one I know > voted for him!" > > In other words, just because *you* don't know anyone who uses AA, > that doesn't mean that a decent number of people *do* use AA. You are absolutely right. :) But there is always a chance of someone rigging the election. http://www.blackboxvoting.org/> and http://www.verifiedvoting.org/> give some background on that. :) -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: mplayer, the time has come
On Fri, 2005-02-25 at 10:36 +0100, Marco d'Itri wrote: > On Feb 25, giskard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > many people who I know, especially artists who use free software, often > > use the reproduction in ascii art (new kind of art). > The artists you know are not many people and they are not representative > of the user base in any way. "I just don't understand how Reagan got elected. No one I know voted for him!" In other words, just because *you* don't know anyone who uses AA, that doesn't mean that a decent number of people *do* use AA. -- - Ron Johnson, Jr. Jefferson, LA USA PGP Key ID 8834C06B I prefer encrypted mail. "Clearly the allies may not like it, and I think that's our great concern - where's the backbone of Russia, where's the backbone of France, where are they in expressing their condemnation of such clearly illegal activity: they're now climbing into a box and they will have enormous difficulty not following up on this if there is not compliance." John Kerry - CNN Crossfire / November 12, 1997 http://www.scoop.co.nz/mason/stories/HL0403/S00076.htm -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: mplayer, the time has come
On Fri, Feb 25, 2005 at 10:36:21AM +0100, Marco d'Itri wrote: > On Feb 25, giskard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > many people who I know, especially artists who use free software, often > > use the reproduction in ascii art (new kind of art). > The artists you know are not many people and they are not representative > of the user base in any way. Those who want to use the aa backend can use -vo sdl:aa if libsdl1.2debian-all is installed (and the mplayer package is compiled with sdl support). -- Petri Latvala signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: mplayer, the time has come
On Feb 25, giskard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > many people who I know, especially artists who use free software, often > use the reproduction in ascii art (new kind of art). The artists you know are not many people and they are not representative of the user base in any way. -- ciao, Marco signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: mplayer, the time has come
On Thu, 24 Feb 2005 19:40:35 -0500 Glenn Maynard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > * Why the "--disable-aa" ? > > Ok caca is better than aa but it's not enabled either. > > libaa, the ASCII art library? I'd hope that'd be disabled in the > normal build. It's a useless novelty; I certainly wouldn't want to > have to install it to get a video player. (Of course, if it can bind > dynamically at runtime, that's not an issue; I don't know if it does > that.) many people who I know, especially artists who use free software, often use the reproduction in ascii art (new kind of art). i think that remove it would be a huge limitation. -- ciao giskard spero nel ritorno del grande bastardo. pgp7WgOpJrtPm.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: mplayer, the time has come
On Thu, Feb 24, 2005 at 10:08:42PM +0100, Sebastien NOEL wrote: > * You removed libmpdvdkit2/ because US laws suck. > Why don't you remove also libfaad2/ which is full of patents problems ? > (according to /usr/share/doc/ffmpeg/patents.txt.gz) I hope that isn't a file with descriptions of patents--anyone who reads such a thing would risk increased patent liability. I'd rather not look for myself to find out, though. That said, are the patents supposedly affecting libfaad2 actively being enforced? Debian's general policy on software patents is to ignore ones which aren't, since that's the only policy that allows anyone to do anything at all. > * Why the "--disable-mencoder" in debian/rules ? > > * Why the "--disable-aa" ? > Ok caca is better than aa but it's not enabled either. libaa, the ASCII art library? I'd hope that'd be disabled in the normal build. It's a useless novelty; I certainly wouldn't want to have to install it to get a video player. (Of course, if it can bind dynamically at runtime, that's not an issue; I don't know if it does that.) > (Maybe it's time to resurrect non-us) I don't know how many times this can be said: non-us is *not a solution* to patents affecting the US, and never has been. AFAIK, non-us was an archive that was uploaded to from outside the US, but could be freely and legally used from inside the US--not an archive which was completely off- limits to the US. -- Glenn Maynard -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: mplayer, the time has come
Hi, I have some questions about your package: * You removed libmpdvdkit2/ because US laws suck. Why don't you remove also libfaad2/ which is full of patents problems ? (according to /usr/share/doc/ffmpeg/patents.txt.gz) * Why the "--disable-mencoder" in debian/rules ? * Why the "--disable-aa" ? Ok caca is better than aa but it's not enabled either. * You build libavcodec and libavformat but that seems to me a waste of time. FFmpeg is already in main, why not only link mplayer with libavcodec.a (libavcodec-dev) and libavformat.a (libavformat-dev) ? Qestion to all DD: Without decss, faad, lame & xvid, mplayer insn't really mplayer. Why debian doesn't have a semi-official structure similar to PLF ? (Maybe it's time to resurrect non-us) Regards, Sebastien NOEL pgpB8vjnVAinb.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: mplayer, the time has come
hi I have uploaded mplayer 1.0pre6a-3 It ships a correctly repackaged upstream source; it has a 'debian/rules get-orig-source' (as asked in debian-devel) that creates the .orig.tar.gz It should appear in http://qa.debian.org/~anibal/debian-NEW.html and in I will put a copy in http://tonelli.sns.it/pub/mplayer/sarge please comment a. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: mplayer, the time has come
* A Mennucc [Tue, 15 Feb 2005 09:52:15 +0100]: > Henning Makholm wrote: > >That is not a valid reason to pretend it is a native package. The > >correct thing to do is to create a new .orig.tar.gz with the offending > >files removed from it, but keep the rest of the .orig.tar.gz > >unchanged. > I object to this > a file mplayerorig.tar.gz is, as the name says, the original > distributed source > distributing my modified tar.gz disguising it as the upstream original > one would be cause of confusion Apart from what others have said, take into account that a string modifier is added to make it clearer that is not the original tarball, e.g.: mplayer_1.0-preX.ds.1.orig.tar.gz. (It seems 'ds' is common for this use, and I believe it stands for 'Debian Source'; 'dfsg' is used too, but when the bits removed are non-free ones.) Just my 2¢, -- Adeodato Simó EM: asp16 [ykwim] alu.ua.es | PK: DA6AE621 Military justice is to justice what military music is to music. -- Groucho Marx -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [Fwd: Re: mplayer, the time has come]
just my 2 cents: mplayer _does not depend_ on the win32codecs : it will work quite fine without them, and still be able to play an humungous number of video formats and codecs. The win32codecs are purely optional. a. Matthew Garrett wrote: MJ Ray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: So, this looks like a different situation to win32codecs.sh to me. How does this downloader script differ from f-prot-installer in contrib? Both depend on some non-free software they download. If it was packaged on its own, it'd go in contrib. However, it's a single small part of a larger work, so it's fine to go in main. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: mplayer, the time has come
Scripsit A Mennucc <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > debianizer - isn't there a debian/rules way to do this now? > no way at all Yes way. See "debian/rules get-orig-source" in policy. Rest of reply in debian-legal. Why are you posting the same thing separately to two different lists? -- Henning Makholm "However, the fact that the utterance by Epimenides of that false sentence could imply the existence of some Cretan who is not a liar is rather unsettling." -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: mplayer, the time has come
On Tue, 15 Feb 2005, A Mennucc wrote: > Henning Makholm wrote: > >Scripsit [EMAIL PROTECTED] (A Mennucc) > >That is not a valid reason to pretend it is a native package. The > > > I object to this > > a file mplayerorig.tar.gz is, as the name says, the original > distributed source Stop with the weed. We have been removing non-free stuff from .orig tarbals since ever. > distributing my modified tar.gz disguising it as the upstream original > one would be cause of confusion That's what the debian/copyright file is for. Or a debian/README.Source, and so on. -- "One disk to rule them all, One disk to find them. One disk to bring them all and in the darkness grind them. In the Land of Redmond where the shadows lie." -- The Silicon Valley Tarot Henrique Holschuh -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: mplayer, the time has come
A Mennucc <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: [please, please repair your quoting mechanism. Done that for you in this mail]. > Henning Makholm wrote: > >> That is not a valid reason to pretend it is a native package. The >> correct thing to do is to create a new .orig.tar.gz with the offending >> files removed from it, but keep the rest of the .orig.tar.gz >> unchanged. Debian changes and package infrastructure should still go >> in a .diff.gz, and the package version should consist of an upstream >> version with a separate Debian revision. > > I object to this > > a file mplayerorig.tar.gz is, as the name says, the original > distributed source No, it isn't there are lots of packages that have removed non-free files from their orig.tar.gz files that way. There might even be packages for which no upstream archive in tar.gz form exists. Please see http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=278524 and the discussions referenced therein. I wrote this bug report in order to enforce a policy that orig.tar.gz files *should* be pristine as possible. But the fact that this is necessary clearly shows that it is not a requirement. > distributing my modified tar.gz disguising it as the upstream original one > would be cause of confusion That's why you have to document this in debian/README.Debian or debian/README.Debian-source. But an orig.gar.gz file is just one technical part of a Debian source package, it doesn's say anything about pristine or repackaged. Regards, Frank -- Frank Küster Inst. f. Biochemie der Univ. Zürich Debian Developer
Re: mplayer, the time has come
A Mennucc wrote: I object to this a file mplayerorig.tar.gz is, as the name says, the original distributed source distributing my modified tar.gz disguising it as the upstream original one would be cause of confusion All of the kernel-source packages that need it have an orig.tar.gz without non-free bits. Look at the 'prune' target in kernel-source-2.6.8 for example. It's just as wrong to make it Debian native as it is to say it's an "upstream original" that in reality lacks some non-free bits. And in practice, the latter is the lesser of two evils. -- Joshua Kwan signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: mplayer, the time has come
Henning Makholm wrote: Scripsit [EMAIL PROTECTED] (A Mennucc) Solution: the DeCSS is deleted from the package proposed for Debian (for this reason, I upload mplayer as a native package); That is not a valid reason to pretend it is a native package. The correct thing to do is to create a new .orig.tar.gz with the offending files removed from it, but keep the rest of the .orig.tar.gz unchanged. Debian changes and package infrastructure should still go in a .diff.gz, and the package version should consist of an upstream version with a separate Debian revision. I object to this a file mplayerorig.tar.gz is, as the name says, the original distributed source distributing my modified tar.gz disguising it as the upstream original one would be cause of confusion a.
Re: mplayer, the time has come
MJ Ray wrote: Andrea Mennucc wrote: I have uploaded a new version of the 'mplayer' package for Debian, namely version 1.0pre6-1 I have reviewed this package, but I've not tried building it. Here are my first comments, split under your headings. --- HISTORY and CURRENT STATUS=20 The README.Debian refers to diffs on a site tonelli.sns.it but I couldn't find them. Would running the cvs-changelog and storing the output help to comply with the letter as well as spirit of the GPL? debianizer - isn't there a debian/rules way to do this now? no way at all suppose that I do this: $ tar xjf MPlayer-1.0pre6.tar.bz2 $ mv MPlayer-1.0pre6 mplayer-1.0pre6 $ tar czf mplayer_1.0pre6.orig.tar.gz at this point I am dead: the file mplayer_1.0pre6.orig.tar.gz will contain DeCSS code, and nothing in debian/rules can delete this code from mplayer_1.0pre6.orig.tar.gz libmpcodecs - missing copyright or are these all but one mplayer creations? they are mplayer creations (at the best of my knowledge) TOOLS - all of this is deleted in response to a reply about one file, or do they really intend them all to be non-free? when I looked in it 2 years ago, I saw that many files did not have proper copyright statements in them. Since I am not packaging anything from TOOLS, I took the radical step to delete them debian/scripts/win32codecs.sh - does this depend on non-free software? nope it will download and install codecs that are non-free; but it is the user choice (and responsibility) to do that. This is no different than what libdvdread3 proposed wrt decss librari --- POPULAR SUPPORT While it's nice to see that developers are so keen for mplayer to be worked on, I hope that someone is directing them towards the historical record and the work which still needs to be done. I only saw it happen in one of the cited threads. I think that explaining this to everyone is one of the main challenges for the mplayer package maintainers and you should add a bit more about it to README.Debian, mentioning investigation_0.90 (does that get included in the /usr/share/doc?) investigation_0.90 is outdated: after 0.90 the upstream authors did their own investigation and prepared the 'Copyright' file --- HISTORY Is it really necessary to fan dead flames by calling them such in the README.Debian? Let bygones be bygones? you sure are right a.
Re: mplayer, the time has come
Ken Bloom wrote: On Mon, 14 Feb 2005 11:46:38 +0100, A Mennucc wrote: There have been two main problems keeping mplayer out of Debian: licenses and copyrights. Licenses: the upstream code contains some code that is protected by (more or less) actively enforced licenses: DeCSS code to decode encrypted dvd; ffmpeg and OpenDivx code to en/decode MPEG4. Solution: the DeCSS is deleted from the package proposed for Debian What functionality do we lose by doing this? my packaging of mplayer will play DVDs using libdvdread3 (exactly as xine does) the DeCSS code inside mplayer is (considered by the upstream authors to be) more optimized and faster ; but including it is troublesome, so the upstream mplayer allows for the deletion of it and the fallback on libdvdread3 a. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: mplayer, the time has come
Ken Bloom wrote: Solution: the DeCSS is deleted from the package proposed for Debian What functionality do we lose by doing this? --Ken Bloom The ability to play any DVD you buy in a store? It's the same functionality Xine loses; however, if mplayer uses dvdread, it'll automatically use libdvdcss2 if you install it yourself (there are some clear instructions in the package) and thus allow viewing of DVDs. -- Joshua Kwan signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: mplayer, the time has come
Le Mar 15 FÃvrier 2005 03:02, Ken Bloom a Ãcrit : > On Mon, 14 Feb 2005 11:46:38 +0100, A Mennucc wrote: > > There have been two main problems keeping mplayer out of Debian: > > licenses and copyrights. > > > > Licenses: > > the upstream code contains some code that is protected by (more or > > less) actively enforced licenses: DeCSS code to decode encrypted > > dvd; ffmpeg and OpenDivx code to en/decode MPEG4. > > > > Solution: > > the DeCSS is deleted from the package proposed for Debian > > What functionality do we lose by doing this? we are unable to read encrypted DVD (quite all of them that means). *but* I guess that this mplayer (I've not tested it though) is able to dlopen the libdcss2 that is packaged on third party mirrors (e.g. on C. Marilliat's repo) -- ÂOÂ Pierre Habouzit ÂÂO OOOhttp://www.madism.org pgpQpg8Ca3bfT.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: mplayer, the time has come
On Mon, 14 Feb 2005 11:46:38 +0100, A Mennucc wrote: > There have been two main problems keeping mplayer out of Debian: licenses > and copyrights. > > Licenses: > the upstream code contains some code that is protected by (more or less) > actively enforced licenses: DeCSS code to decode encrypted dvd; > ffmpeg and OpenDivx code to en/decode MPEG4. > > Solution: > the DeCSS is deleted from the package proposed for Debian What functionality do we lose by doing this? --Ken Bloom -- I usually have a GPG digital signature included as an attachment. See http://www.gnupg.org/ for info about these digital signatures. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: mplayer, the time has come
On Mon, 2005-02-14 at 11:46 +0100, A Mennucc wrote: > (Unfortunately it does not show yet in the new queue at > http://qa.debian.org/~anibal/debian-NEW.html It does show on the summary. Since there were previous mplayer packages on NEW, it is listed inside the row of the first package timestamp found on the queue directory (look over Aug 4th, 2004). We are working for extending the summary functionalities, anyway. -- David Moreno Garza <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> | http://www.damog.net/ *** Quits: TITANIC (Excess Flood) GPG: C671257D - 6EF6 C284 C95D 78F6 0B78 FFD3 981C 5FD7 C671 257D -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: mplayer, the time has come
A Mennucc wrote: > mplayer_1.0pre6a-1_i386.deb is linked against libxvidcore > > sorry folks > > I have compiled and uploaded mplayer_1.0pre6a-2_i386.deb > > it is also accessible at > http://tonelli.sns.it/pub/mplayer/sarge > > thanx emfox for pointing out Given the acceptance of ffmpeg, I can't think of any reason an XviD package would be rejected. (Of course, until it is, mplayer still can't be uploaded linked with it.) - Josh Triplett signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: mplayer, the time has come
Scripsit [EMAIL PROTECTED] (A Mennucc) > Solution: > the DeCSS is deleted from the package proposed for Debian > (for this reason, I upload mplayer as a native package); That is not a valid reason to pretend it is a native package. The correct thing to do is to create a new .orig.tar.gz with the offending files removed from it, but keep the rest of the .orig.tar.gz unchanged. Debian changes and package infrastructure should still go in a .diff.gz, and the package version should consist of an upstream version with a separate Debian revision. -- Henning Makholm"What a hideous colour khaki is." -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: mplayer, the time has come
Hi, * A Mennucc <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2005-02-14 15:53]: > > mplayer_1.0pre6a-1_i386.deb is linked against libxvidcore > > sorry folks > > I have compiled and uploaded mplayer_1.0pre6a-2_i386.deb > > it is also accessible at > http://tonelli.sns.it/pub/mplayer/sarge > > thanx emfox for pointing out package works fine for me just like the normal tarball. i like to see this in the pool. regards nico -- Nico Golde - [EMAIL PROTECTED] | GPG: 1024D/73647CFF ,'"`. [EMAIL PROTECTED] | http://www.ngolde.de ( grml.org VIM has two modes - the one in which it beeps`._,' and the one in which it doesn't -- encrypted mail preferred pgpBQsrRVWx0w.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: mplayer, the time has come
mplayer_1.0pre6a-1_i386.deb is linked against libxvidcore sorry folks I have compiled and uploaded mplayer_1.0pre6a-2_i386.deb it is also accessible at http://tonelli.sns.it/pub/mplayer/sarge thanx emfox for pointing out a. -- Andrea Mennucc "Ukn ow,Ifina llyfixe dmysp acebar.ohwh atthef" pgpaNQsrGlQvh.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: mplayer, the time has come
On Mon, 2005-02-14 at 06:52 -0500, Greg Folkert wrote: > On Mon, 2005-02-14 at 11:46 +0100, A Mennucc wrote: > > hi > > > > I have uploaded a new version of the 'mplayer' package for Debian, > > namely version 1.0pre6-1 > > > > (Unfortunately it does not show yet in the new queue at > > http://qa.debian.org/~anibal/debian-NEW.html > > but it is also accessible at > > http://tonelli.sns.it/pub/mplayer/sarge > > ) > > > > I REALLY think that the time has come for mplayer to be part of Debian > > What about the Packages for mplayer that Christian Marillat has been > providing for years? > > Have you even discussed this with him? Obviously from other remarks I am a Buffoon. Surely all the work he has done is worth something, thinking about using his stuff for a base to work from. But, obviously, Buffoonism are me. -- greg, [EMAIL PROTECTED] The technology that is Stronger, better, faster: Linux signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: mplayer, the time has come
Greg Folkert wrote: What about the Packages for mplayer that Christian Marillat has been providing for years? Have you even discussed this with him? Hrm, you don't know him, do you? Otherwise you wouldn't be suggesting to discuss with him. -- .''`. Josselin Mouette/\./\ : :' : [EMAIL PROTECTED] `. `'[EMAIL PROTECTED] `- Debian GNU/Linux -- The power of freedom -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: mplayer, the time has come
On Feb 14, Greg Folkert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > What about the Packages for mplayer that Christian Marillat has been > providing for years? It's well known that he is not interested in having them become part of Debian. -- ciao, Marco signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: mplayer, the time has come
On Mon, 2005-02-14 at 11:46 +0100, A Mennucc wrote: > hi > > I have uploaded a new version of the 'mplayer' package for Debian, > namely version 1.0pre6-1 > > (Unfortunately it does not show yet in the new queue at > http://qa.debian.org/~anibal/debian-NEW.html > but it is also accessible at > http://tonelli.sns.it/pub/mplayer/sarge > ) > > I REALLY think that the time has come for mplayer to be part of Debian What about the Packages for mplayer that Christian Marillat has been providing for years? Have you even discussed this with him? > > > --- HISTORY and CURRENT STATUS > > There have been two main problems keeping mplayer out of Debian: > licenses and copyrights. > > Licenses: > the upstream code contains some code that is protected by > (more or less) actively enforced licenses: > DeCSS code to decode encrypted dvd; > ffmpeg and OpenDivx code to en/decode MPEG4. > > Solution: > the DeCSS is deleted from the package proposed for Debian > (for this reason, I upload mplayer as a native package); > whereas ffmpeg is not a problem anymore : the package 'ffmpeg' > is in Debian already. > The OpenDivx code is not there any more, see in section E.2 of docs, or > http://www.mplayerhq.hu/DOCS/HTML/en/mplayer-binary.html > > Copyrights: at some time in the past, a lot of code was added to mplayer > without keeping due track (as GPL requires); this spurred a long > and wild thread in debian and mplayer lists, about 5 years ago. > > Solution: lately, the mplayer team did a long and detailed work to track down > the origin of all the code in MPlayer; the results are in the 'Copyright' > file. > > > --- PLEA > > Please, please > > I acknowledge that, in the past, there were many problems that > prevented mplayer from entering Debian; these problems sometimes > spurred flaming threads; I think that these problems are now solved; > but some people would still write mails as > "mplayer is a copyright mess" or > "mplayer is so encumbered by patents it will never go in Debian". > > Please forget the past problems and check this package as it is now. > > --- POPULAR SUPPORT > > there have been many voices asking for mplayer to be in Debian > > Jan 05, F Dannemare: > " what is now holding back >software such as mplayer/mencoder, transcode and mjpegtools from >entering Debian?" > http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2005/01/msg00721.html > > Goswin von Brederlow : > "At least I would like to know whats up with mplayer now that ffmpeg is > in Debian." > http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2005/02/msg00136.html > > Jul 2004 , L Kaplan: > "I didn't find any package for MPlayer on the main repository. I checked > its license and found it to be GPL v2 > (http://www.mplayerhq.hu/homepage/design7/info.html) > Any reason that it won't have a package?" > http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2004/07/msg01522.html > > Jan 04, D Shearer, Re: Top 5 things that aren't in Debian but should be :-) > "mplayer will definitely make the top 5, it illustrates some of the >bottle-necks of Debian or better, of the upstream. When two perfect ones >meet ;) " > http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2004/01/msg00820.html > > M Krafft > "So can we package it now for Debian?" > http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2003/07/msg00942.html > > Moreover there have been many many ITP for mplayer. > > --- HISTORY > > the history of the effort to have MPlayer into Debian is a lng one; > we have uploaded many packages; the second-but-last time I prepared and/or > uploaded a package was in > Jul 2003 : http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2003/07/msg01633.html > we received some feedback and we corrected all problems in mplayer 0.90 > Mar 2004 : > there was a nice and contructive thread started by > http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2004/03/msg00235.html > which suggested that mplayer was ready to be accepted > (but for a minor concern expressed in >http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2004/03/msg00243.html > that was not considered too bad to reject the package). > > I then uploaded a package mplayer 1.0.cvs20030324-1 > that was refused (in Aug 04) because > /usr/share/doc/mplayer/copyright was incomplete; I uploaded a > corrected version , and never received a reply. > > > a. > -- greg, [EMAIL PROTECTED] The technology that is Stronger, better, faster: Linux signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: mplayer, the time has come
also sprach A Mennucc <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2005.02.14.1146 +0100]: > I have uploaded a new version of the 'mplayer' package for Debian, > namely version 1.0pre6-1 Great. At least in the eyes of our (prospective) users, this was one major hurdle. Now let's hope that the ftpmasters look into NEW at least once, eh, 3/4 months...? -- Please do not send copies of list mail to me; I read the list! .''`. martin f. krafft <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> : :' :proud Debian developer, admin, user, and author `. `'` `- Debian - when you have better things to do than fixing a system Invalid/expired PGP subkeys? Use subkeys.pgp.net as keyserver! signature.asc Description: Digital signature
