Re: debian-multimedia.org considered harmful, Was: Unofficial repositories on 'debian' domains
On Fri, Mar 16, 2012 at 3:23 AM, Chris Knadle chris.kna...@coredump.us wrote: On Monday, March 05, 2012 10:42:50, Reinhard Tartler wrote: ... Friendly discussion with the maintainer of debian-multimedia.org to not replace libraries such as libavcodec and friends have failed ultimatively (BTW, that is part of the reason why we've ended up with an epoch of '4', dmo uses epoch '5'); he has repeatedly shown that is not interested in collaborating with pkg-multimedia at all. He also does not seem interested in installing libraries in a way that they do not interfere with 'official' Debian packages (e.g., by changing SONAMES, or installing in private directories, etc.). I've been trying to find where these discussions occurred, but I'm unable to find them in either [dmo-discussion] mailing list archives (which go back as far as June 2010), nor in the [debian-multimedia] mailing list at least as far back as January 2010. Try the pkg-multimedia-maintainers mailing list: http://lists.alioth.debian.org/pipermail/pkg-multimedia-maintainers/2008-November/002221.html -- regards, Reinhard -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/CAJ0cceZZ+G56DLW4yp=QF5DgP-tww_NWKyO91b=aqCJT0wy=-g...@mail.gmail.com
Re: debian-multimedia.org considered harmful, Was: Unofficial repositories on 'debian' domains
On Fri, Mar 16, 2012 at 5:06 PM, Reinhard Tartler siret...@gmail.com wrote: On Fri, Mar 16, 2012 at 3:23 AM, Chris Knadle chris.kna...@coredump.us wrote: On Monday, March 05, 2012 10:42:50, Reinhard Tartler wrote: ... Friendly discussion with the maintainer of debian-multimedia.org to not replace libraries such as libavcodec and friends have failed ultimatively (BTW, that is part of the reason why we've ended up with an epoch of '4', dmo uses epoch '5'); he has repeatedly shown that is not interested in collaborating with pkg-multimedia at all. He also does not seem interested in installing libraries in a way that they do not interfere with 'official' Debian packages (e.g., by changing SONAMES, or installing in private directories, etc.). I've been trying to find where these discussions occurred, but I'm unable to find them in either [dmo-discussion] mailing list archives (which go back as far as June 2010), nor in the [debian-multimedia] mailing list at least as far back as January 2010. Try the pkg-multimedia-maintainers mailing list: http://lists.alioth.debian.org/pipermail/pkg-multimedia-maintainers/2008-November/002221.html -- regards, Reinhard -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/caj0ccezz+g56dlw4ypqf5dgp-tww_nwkyo91baqcjt0w...@mail.gmail.com Here's another one, showing more or less what Reinhard has been saying. http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=592457 -- ~ Andres -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/capm41np68-aaiooqf1q0mpt1tlkbrmgp1bamuye8crmwmgh...@mail.gmail.com
Re: debian-multimedia.org considered harmful, Was: Unofficial repositories on 'debian' domains
On Fri, Mar 16, 2012 at 5:06 PM, Reinhard Tartler siret...@gmail.com wrote: On Fri, Mar 16, 2012 at 3:23 AM, Chris Knadle chris.kna...@coredump.us wrote: On Monday, March 05, 2012 10:42:50, Reinhard Tartler wrote: ... Friendly discussion with the maintainer of debian-multimedia.org to not replace libraries such as libavcodec and friends have failed ultimatively (BTW, that is part of the reason why we've ended up with an epoch of '4', dmo uses epoch '5'); he has repeatedly shown that is not interested in collaborating with pkg-multimedia at all. He also does not seem interested in installing libraries in a way that they do not interfere with 'official' Debian packages (e.g., by changing SONAMES, or installing in private directories, etc.). I've been trying to find where these discussions occurred, but I'm unable to find them in either [dmo-discussion] mailing list archives (which go back as far as June 2010), nor in the [debian-multimedia] mailing list at least as far back as January 2010. Try the pkg-multimedia-maintainers mailing list: Thanks. http://lists.alioth.debian.org/pipermail/pkg-multimedia-maintainers/2008- November/002221.html On this all I see is a request on the mailing list meant for Christian re:epoch, but no reply. It's also 4 years ago, before the release of Lenny. -- regards, Reinhard Other emails I see on [pkg-multimedia-maintainers] going back to 2010: Christian Marrilat: Mar 19 2011 (helpful): Bug#618899: libffms2-dev: Missing dependecies [1] Aug 14 2011 (quite interesting): Bug#637758: libmp4v2-dev: Should be architecture any and not all [2] Nov 19 2010 (snide): Bug#544062: ITP: xcfa -- X Convert File Audio [3] Christian might be opinionated, but it also seems to me like he's trying to work (at least some) with d.o AFAICS. Another recent thread relating to d-m.o: Andres Mejia, Mar 5 2012: Fwd: Re: Unofficial repositories on 'debian' domains [4] Reinhard Tartler Mar 5 2012 (interesting): Unofficial repositories on 'debian' domains [5] Logic question: why is debian-multimedia.org considered a Debian domain when it's not under a *.debian.org DNS name, but yet something *.debian.net is not considered part of Debian? Is anything *[debian]*.org of issue? On Friday, March 16, 2012 17:34:12, Andres Mejia wrote: ... Here's another one, showing more or less what Reinhard has been saying. http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=592457 Yes I've read the above bug report previously -- it's simultaneously mildly shocking but also not very illuminating. Christian gets frustrated when his bug report is lowered in severity after 4 weeks with no explanation, S.Z. makes an insinuation of a problem between Christian and ffmpeg maintainers. There are several ways to read between the lines there. Thankfully even though the social outcome is somewhat negative, the bug has a positive technical outcome. [1] http://lists.alioth.debian.org/pipermail/pkg-multimedia- maintainers/2011-March/017082.html [2] http://lists.alioth.debian.org/pipermail/pkg-multimedia- maintainers/2011-August/021110.html [3] http://lists.alioth.debian.org/pipermail/pkg-multimedia- maintainers/2010-November/014112.html [4] http://lists.alioth.debian.org/pipermail/pkg-multimedia- maintainers/2012-March/025117.html [5] http://lists.alioth.debian.org/pipermail/pkg-multimedia- maintainers/2012-March/025125.html -- Chris -- Chris Knadle chris.kna...@coredump.us -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/201203162040.08869.chris.kna...@coredump.us
Re: debian-multimedia.org considered harmful, Was: Unofficial repositories on 'debian' domains
On Monday, March 05, 2012 10:42:50, Reinhard Tartler wrote: ... Friendly discussion with the maintainer of debian-multimedia.org to not replace libraries such as libavcodec and friends have failed ultimatively (BTW, that is part of the reason why we've ended up with an epoch of '4', dmo uses epoch '5'); he has repeatedly shown that is not interested in collaborating with pkg-multimedia at all. He also does not seem interested in installing libraries in a way that they do not interfere with 'official' Debian packages (e.g., by changing SONAMES, or installing in private directories, etc.). I've been trying to find where these discussions occurred, but I'm unable to find them in either [dmo-discussion] mailing list archives (which go back as far as June 2010), nor in the [debian-multimedia] mailing list at least as far back as January 2010. The latter archives go as far back as May 2003, but I stopped looking at Jan 2010 because had hoped to see at least some public discussion somewhere back when Squeeze was being prepared for release. The only emails I've been able to find seem curteous and professional on both sides: Christian Marrilat apparently uses a Pin: release o=Unofficial Multimedia Packages (rather than l=Unofficial ...) explaining to someone how to try to avoid conflicts with the Debian Experimental repo [1] Christian Marrilat sending a patch for libv4l-dev to debian-multimedia [2] NMU from Stefano Zacchiroli which seems to included the above patch [3] While debian-multimedia.org has gained a reputation of providing packages, which were desperately lacking in Debian, IMO this repository has turned into a major source of trouble and pissed users provoking flamewars in the recent past. If so I haven't seen that on [dmo-discussion] or [debian-multimedia] either. If these happened on [debian-devel] then I can understand how I missed them as the traffic here is relatively high. [1] http://www.debian- multimedia.org/lurker/message/20100810.221410.d56b9d14.en.html [2] http://lists.debian.org/debian-multimedia/2010/02/msg00013.html [3] http://lists.debian.org/debian-multimedia/2010/03/msg00015.html -- Chris -- Chris Knadle chris.kna...@coredump.us -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/201203152223.13631.chris.kna...@coredump.us
Re: debian-multimedia.org considered harmful, Was: Unofficial repositories on 'debian' domains
OoO Pendant le temps de midi du samedi 10 mars 2012, vers 12:30, Eric Valette eric.vale...@free.fr disait : Yes acknowledged that vlc and mplayer are now up-to-date. vlc 0.5.3 was released on April, 8 2003. Debian package on April, 14 2003. vlc 0.8.6a was released on January, 4 2007. Debian package on January, 11 2007. vlc 1.0.0 was released on July, 7 2009. Debian package on July, 9 2009. vlc 1.1.0 was released on June, 22 2010. Debian package on June, 24 2010. vlc 1.1.11 was released on July, 16 2011. Debian package on July, 18 2011. vlc 2.0.0 was released on February, 18 2012. Debian package on the same day. When exactly was vlc not up-to-date on Debian? -- Vincent Bernat ☯ http://vincent.bernat.im Don't use conditional branches as a substitute for a logical expression. - The Elements of Programming Style (Kernighan Plauger) pgpUA2IztkxOH.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Re: debian-multimedia.org considered harmful, Was: Unofficial repositories on 'debian' domains
When exactly was vlc not up-to-date on Debian? As long as it is unable to play dvd or various codec that are non supported given the option for compiling libav for example -- eric -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/4f5c86f7.6010...@free.fr
Re: debian-multimedia.org considered harmful, Was: Unofficial repositories on 'debian' domains
On Sat, Mar 10, 2012 at 11:44:50AM +0100, Eric Valette wrote: On 10/03/2012 11:14, Thomas Goirand wrote: Debian Squeeze has a very nice set of packages that will make a good fit for this platform. What do you think will be lacking exactly? XBMC, up to date ffmpeg at least with some non-free extensions for sure. Actually, ffmpeg changed names to libav recently. The latter is in Debian (unstable), not yet in debian-multimedia.org's unstable repository. Also, I fail to see why you need to be so agressive. Please calm down a bit. For the longest time, Debian didn't provide certain patent-encumbered packages because we thought we couldn't, for legal reasons. Recently, however, this policy has been changed after we received some legal advice from lawyers specializing in the area, and as a result the pkg-multimedia folks are now uploading packages without removal of features. If all goes well, eventually debian-multimedia will be obsolete because everything is in Debian proper; and that would always be better than having an extra repository, don't you think? [...] -- The volume of a pizza of thickness a and radius z can be described by the following formula: pi zz a -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20120311145428.gh22...@grep.be
Re: debian-multimedia.org considered harmful, Was: Unofficial repositories on 'debian' domains
[CC Eric - drop all other CCs] On 12-03-11 at 03:54pm, Wouter Verhelst wrote: On Sat, Mar 10, 2012 at 11:44:50AM +0100, Eric Valette wrote: On 10/03/2012 11:14, Thomas Goirand wrote: Debian Squeeze has a very nice set of packages that will make a good fit for this platform. What do you think will be lacking exactly? XBMC, up to date ffmpeg at least with some non-free extensions for sure. Actually, ffmpeg changed names to libav recently. The latter is in Debian (unstable), not yet in debian-multimedia.org's unstable repository. Not exactly: Libav is a _fork_ of FFmpeg. /me now expecting a looong subthread on how Debian is stupid and wrong in maintaining LibAV instead of FFmpeg... - Jonas -- * Jonas Smedegaard - idealist Internet-arkitekt * Tlf.: +45 40843136 Website: http://dr.jones.dk/ [x] quote me freely [ ] ask before reusing [ ] keep private signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: debian-multimedia.org considered harmful, Was: Unofficial repositories on 'debian' domains
While debian-multimedia.org has gained a reputation of providing packages, which were desperately lacking in Debian, IMO this repository has turned into a major source of trouble and pissed users provoking flamewars in the recent past. There is still a number of remaining multimedia-related packages that we still lack in Debian, and pkg-multimedia is working on getting at least the most popular ones packaged and uploaded - help, as always, is of course very appreciated. [2] The problem is that debian per se 1) is unusable for any serious multimedia usage. what are the version of VLC, ffmpeg, xbmc provided by debian? 2) has long pretended they have the knowledge to make multimedia packages better than other Instead of arguing you should be pleased someone makes debian useable for multimedia activities otherwise people will move to ubuntu where also multimedia packages are maintained via non official PPA Have you heard of raspberrypi, cubox, spark, that are making the buzz. What is demoed on it: multimedia capabilities. Will debian be attractiive without multimedia packages: no. In summary, I can only advise everyone against enabling that repository on any machine. Crap: I've been using that for ages (running debian since 96) with experimental+unstable and it is rock solid. Maintainer also fixes issues and respond to bug report more correctly than some other official package maintainer. --eric -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/4f5b19ba.8010...@free.fr
Re: debian-multimedia.org considered harmful, Was: Unofficial repositories on 'debian' domains
On 03/10/2012 05:07 PM, Eric Valette wrote: The problem is that debian per se 1) is unusable for any serious multimedia usage. 1/ I don't agree. 2/ Please define serious. what are the version of VLC, ffmpeg, xbmc provided by debian? In where? Stable? SID? Backports? FYI, you can check all of this easily by yourself using packages.debian.org. Or are you trying to make the point that Debian has outdated packages? 2) has long pretended they have the knowledge to make multimedia packages better than other There's nobody pretending. Only facts that d-m.o does break things in plain Debian. That's facts, together with with the explanations and things we've found. If there are issues that you have found in the Debian packages, the Debian bug tracker is open to anyone to send bugs, and Debian is also widely open to contributions. Have you ever contributed anything to Debian? Instead of arguing you should be pleased someone makes debian useable for multimedia activities otherwise people will move to ubuntu where also multimedia packages are maintained via non official PPA I don't think anyone is trying to argue with anyone. And you, instead of complaining about behaviors of Debian maintainers, like you just do above, you should push others to participate in Debian itself, rather than working on their own stuff. Or even better: consider helping yourself. I don't think that the debian multimedia maintainers ever refused help. Have you heard of raspberrypi, cubox, spark, that are making the buzz. What is demoed on it: multimedia capabilities. Will debian be attractiive without multimedia packages: no. It's up to *anyone* (eg: including yourself) to make this change. And by the way, I have read many people writing that Debian would be a very good choice for raspberry pi. I do think that Debian Squeeze has a very nice set of packages that will make a good fit for this platform. What do you think will be lacking exactly? In summary, I can only advise everyone against enabling that repository on any machine. Crap: I've been using that for ages (running debian since 96) with experimental+unstable and it is rock solid. Sorry, after having the pain of d-m.o breaking my Lenny to Squeeze upgrade, and seeing that d-m.o introduces some epoc in the package version (at least recently for VLC) which breaks plain Debian, you absolutely *cannot* say that it's rock solid. That's just not the case at all. Also, someone else made the point that Christian Marilla doesn't want to work directly in Debian, which I believe is the main issue here. Maintainer also fixes issues and respond to bug report more correctly than some other official package maintainer. Please give facts and proves the sentence above. As much as I can tell by this thread, it has been demonstrated that packages in d-m.o do not have serious security upgrades. Also, please explain here how the official packages aren't giving security upgrades in a correct way. Debian has a security tracker, a security repository, and a security team which takes care of all these, and is in tight relationship with other distros. Can you say the same for d-m.o? It's very easy to point fingers at others, without giving proof of what you are writing, and without proposing any help. I find this a very bad attitude. Thomas -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/4f5b2982.1040...@debian.org
Re: debian-multimedia.org considered harmful, Was: Unofficial repositories on 'debian' domains
On 10/03/2012 11:14, Thomas Goirand wrote: In where? Stable? SID? Backports? FYI, you can check all of this easily by yourself using packages.debian.org. Or are you trying to make the point that Debian has outdated packages? I ask you a question: what are the version of the packeges in debian unstable and in debian-multimedia.org trying to be factual. I know the answer, I just would like someone from debian to write it down ;-) I know the version already yes. And yes debian is completely outdated. Or even better: consider helping yourself. I don't think that the debian multimedia maintainers ever refused help. I do help the people providing the packages I need and currently its debian-multimedia. Have you heard of raspberrypi, cubox, spark, that are making the buzz. What is demoed on it: multimedia capabilities. Will debian be attractiive without multimedia packages: no. It's up to *anyone* (eg: including yourself) to make this change. And by the way, I have read many people writing that Debian would be a very good choice for raspberry pi. I do think that Debian Squeeze has a very nice set of packages that will make a good fit for this platform. What do you think will be lacking exactly? XBMC, up to date ffmpeg at least with some non-free extensions for sure. It's very easy to point fingers at others, without giving proof of what you are writing, and without proposing any help. I find this a very bad attitude. I was not the first pointing fingers. And yes it's because I also think it is bad attitude that I reacted. -- eric -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/4f5b30a2.7040...@free.fr
Re: debian-multimedia.org considered harmful, Was: Unofficial repositories on 'debian' domains
On Sat, 2012-03-10 at 11:44 +0100, Eric Valette wrote: I ask you a question: what are the version of the packeges in debian unstable and in debian-multimedia.org trying to be factual. I know the answer, I just would like someone from debian to write it down ;-) I know the version already yes. And yes debian is completely outdated. vlc |2.0.0-6 | unstable | source http://www.debian-multimedia.org/dists/unstable/main/binary-amd64/package/vlc.php says they're shipping 1:2.0.0-0.1. What was your point? As I'm sure you're aware, Debian ships libav rather than ffmpeg. The latest libav release is 0.8, and: libav |4:0.8-2 | unstable | source Regards, Adam -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/1331377898.24969.12.ca...@jacala.jungle.funky-badger.org
Re: debian-multimedia.org considered harmful, Was: Unofficial repositories on 'debian' domains
On 10/03/2012 11:44, Eric Valette wrote: I know the version already yes. And yes debian is completely outdated. To be fair, but catching up at least for vlc, mplayer... Still no xbmc, handbrake, libdvbcsa tough and quite old ffmpeg -- eric -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/4f5b3515.10...@free.fr
Re: debian-multimedia.org considered harmful, Was: Unofficial repositories on 'debian' domains
On 10/03/2012 12:03, Eric Valette wrote: On 10/03/2012 11:44, Eric Valette wrote: I know the version already yes. And yes debian is completely outdated. To be fair, but catching up at least for vlc, mplayer... Still no xbmc, handbrake, libdvbcsa tough and quite old ffmpeg mythtv, tvheadend, ... -- eric -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/4f5b3659.5010...@free.fr
Re: Re: debian-multimedia.org considered harmful, Was: Unofficial repositories on 'debian' domains
Yes acknowledged that vlc and mplayer are now up-to-date. Libav vs ffmpeg could be per se part of the debate. We could also speak about compilation options and induced feature/codec support what about xbmc, mythv, tvheadend, avidemux? -- eric -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/4f5b3b53.5050...@free.fr
Re: debian-multimedia.org considered harmful, Was: Unofficial repositories on 'debian' domains
On Sat, 10 Mar 2012 11:44:50 +0100, Eric Valette eric.vale...@free.fr wrote: On 10/03/2012 11:14, Thomas Goirand wrote: In where? Stable? SID? Backports? FYI, you can check all of this easily by yourself using packages.debian.org. Or are you trying to make the point that Debian has outdated packages? I ask you a question: what are the version of the packeges in debian unstable and in debian-multimedia.org trying to be factual. I know the answer, I just would like someone from debian to write it down ;-) I know the version already yes. And yes debian is completely outdated. Really? http://www.debian-multimedia.org/dists/unstable/main/binary-amd64/package/vlc.php Details for vlc (1:2.0.0-0.1) http://packages.debian.org/wheezy/vlc Package: vlc (2.0.0-6) so, yes there's the spurious epoch there, but otherwise that looks like the same latest version. Even if you were talking about stable -- well d-m.o doesn't have a version of vlc in its stable repository, but perhaps you're on about stable-backports: http://www.debian-multimedia.org/dists/squeeze-backports/main/binary-amd64/package/vlc.php Details for vlc (1.1.3-1squeeze6.1) which I must say I was surprised to see is not at the latest version, and is not even more up to date than the stable debian version. http://packages.debian.org/squeeze/vlc Package: vlc (1.1.3-1squeeze6) I presume that's why you didn't risk backing up your point with any facts or references. Cheers, Phil. -- |)| Philip Hands [+44 (0)20 8530 9560]http://www.hands.com/ |-| HANDS.COM Ltd.http://www.uk.debian.org/ |(| 10 Onslow Gardens, South Woodford, London E18 1NE ENGLAND pgpwM4uDx3M0T.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: debian-multimedia.org considered harmful, Was: Unofficial repositories on 'debian' domains
On 10/03/2012 12:40, Philip Hands wrote: Really? Again, vlc or mplayer do not make a multi-media capable distribution. take a look at yavdr, openelec, geexbox, ubuntu studio and the packages they provide Read http://thelinuxcauldron.wordpress.com/2009/04/14/the-list-the-top-5-media-center-programs-for-linux/ and see the one you have. -- eric -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/4f5b4a59.7050...@free.fr
Re: debian-multimedia.org considered harmful, Was: Unofficial repositories on 'debian' domains
On 12-03-10 at 12:30pm, Eric Valette wrote: Yes acknowledged that vlc and mplayer are now up-to-date. Libav vs ffmpeg could be per se part of the debate. We could also speak about compilation options and induced feature/codec support what about xbmc, mythv, tvheadend, avidemux? Well, you started this subthread, so you get to explain what is the point of emphasizing those: I am quite puzzled how you mean to say that only with up-to-date versions of _those_ tools can you do _serious_ multimedia. That was your claim, right? - Jonas -- * Jonas Smedegaard - idealist Internet-arkitekt * Tlf.: +45 40843136 Website: http://dr.jones.dk/ [x] quote me freely [ ] ask before reusing [ ] keep private signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: debian-multimedia.org considered harmful, Was: Unofficial repositories on 'debian' domains
On 12-03-10 at 01:34pm, Eric Valette wrote: On 10/03/2012 12:40, Philip Hands wrote: Really? Again, vlc or mplayer do not make a multi-media capable distribution. take a look at yavdr, openelec, geexbox, ubuntu studio and the packages they provide Read http://thelinuxcauldron.wordpress.com/2009/04/14/the-list-the-top-5-media-center-programs-for-linux/ and see the one you have. Ahh, so your definition of serious multimedia is media centers. Thanks for clarifying. I agree, that's an area Debian has too few poeple devoted to currently. Please do consider to help out yourself! NB! Contrary to common misunderstanding, you need not be a full member of Debian to work closely with us. More info here: http://wiki.debian.org/DebianMultimedia#Get_involved Regards, - Jonas -- * Jonas Smedegaard - idealist Internet-arkitekt * Tlf.: +45 40843136 Website: http://dr.jones.dk/ [x] quote me freely [ ] ask before reusing [ ] keep private signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Re: debian-multimedia.org considered harmful, Was: Unofficial repositories on 'debian' domains
take a look at yavdr, openelec, geexbox, ubuntu studio and the packages they provide Readhttp://thelinuxcauldron.wordpress.com/2009/04/14/the-list-the-top-5-media-center-programs-for-linux/ and see the one you have. Ahh, so your definition of serious multimedia is media centers. Thanks for clarifying. I agree, that's an area Debian has too few poeple devoted to currently. Please do consider to help out yourself! Thanks for not copying me. Afraid I was going to answer? Ubuntu studio is not media center BTW. And you also need sources to browse and its mainly IPTV or DVB-T/C/S, DVD or blue-ray. With actual policy (that I respect and understand), you are not going to provide stuff to circumvent protection means meaning I cannot watch even a dvd. I help debugging XBMC and ffmpeg using debian packaging tool. Feel free to incorporate other people work. --eric -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/4f5b75cf.1080...@free.fr
Re: debian-multimedia.org considered harmful, Was: Unofficial repositories on 'debian' domains
On 12-03-10 at 04:39pm, Eric Valette wrote: take a look at yavdr, openelec, geexbox, ubuntu studio and the packages they provide Readhttp://thelinuxcauldron.wordpress.com/2009/04/14/the-list-the-top-5-media-center-programs-for-linux/ and see the one you have. Ahh, so your definition of serious multimedia is media centers. Thanks for clarifying. I agree, that's an area Debian has too few poeple devoted to currently. Please do consider to help out yourself! Thanks for not copying me. Afraid I was going to answer? No. This list assumes subscription and welcomes explicit requests to cc: http://www.debian.org/MailingLists/#codeofconduct Ubuntu studio is not media center BTW. Good point. - Jonas -- * Jonas Smedegaard - idealist Internet-arkitekt * Tlf.: +45 40843136 Website: http://dr.jones.dk/ [x] quote me freely [ ] ask before reusing [ ] keep private signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: debian-multimedia.org considered harmful, Was: Unofficial repositories on 'debian' domains
Eric Valette eric.vale...@free.fr writes: Thanks for not copying me. Afraid I was going to answer? This mailing list, like all sensibly-run mailing lists, does not munge the ‘Reply-To’ field. If you have a conversation in a public forum, the onus is on you to participate in the discussion in that public forum. With actual policy (that I respect and understand), you are not going to provide stuff to circumvent protection means meaning I cannot watch even a dvd. Your complaint, then, is against those who use the law to restrict your use of your legally-acquired DVD or Blu-Ray disc and disingenuously call it “protection”. It is misdirected against the Debian project. I help debugging XBMC and ffmpeg using debian packaging tool. Feel free to incorporate other people work. A precondition is that the terms make it legally free to do that. Thank you for your work to improve Debian for everyone. -- \ “Cross country skiing is great if you live in a small country.” | `\—Steven Wright | _o__) | Ben Finney -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/87d38kj9b5@benfinney.id.au
Re: debian-multimedia.org considered harmful, Was: Unofficial repositories on 'debian' domains
On 2012-03-05 16:42:50 +0100, Reinhard Tartler wrote: Friendly discussion with the maintainer of debian-multimedia.org to not replace libraries such as libavcodec and friends have failed ultimatively (BTW, that is part of the reason why we've ended up with an epoch of '4', dmo uses epoch '5'); he has repeatedly shown that is not interested in collaborating with pkg-multimedia at all. He also does not seem interested in installing libraries in a way that they do not interfere with 'official' Debian packages (e.g., by changing SONAMES, or installing in private directories, etc.). It's worse than that. Security support is non-existent, and users don't know that. An example: http://lists.debian.org/debian-user-french/2010/08/msg6.html where a user recommended flashplayer-mozilla from debian-multimedia (debian-multimedia.org), saying that it was working very well. What he didn't say (and there was no information on debian-multimedia.org either), is that this was a version with critical vulnerabilities known since June 2010: http://www.adobe.com/support/security/bulletins/apsb10-14.html -- Vincent Lefèvre vinc...@vinc17.net - Web: http://www.vinc17.net/ 100% accessible validated (X)HTML - Blog: http://www.vinc17.net/blog/ Work: CR INRIA - computer arithmetic / AriC project (LIP, ENS-Lyon) -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20120308114637.gd3...@xvii.vinc17.org
Re: debian-multimedia.org considered harmful, Was: Unofficial repositories on 'debian' domains
On 2012-03-08, Vincent Lefevre vinc...@vinc17.net wrote: It's worse than that. Security support is non-existent, and users don't know that. An example: [… non-free package …] Well, non-free in Debian proper doesn't have security support neither. But then I guess one could argue that users at least know that this is the case, don't they? Kind regards Philipp Kern -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/slrnjlh9t9.5cg.tr...@kelgar.0x539.de
Re: debian-multimedia.org considered harmful, Was: Unofficial repositories on 'debian' domains
On 2012-03-08 12:35:53 +, Philipp Kern wrote: On 2012-03-08, Vincent Lefevre vinc...@vinc17.net wrote: It's worse than that. Security support is non-existent, and users don't know that. An example: [… non-free package …] Well, non-free in Debian proper doesn't have security support neither. But then I guess one could argue that users at least know that this is the case, don't they? No, the package was *not* a non-free package, it was in main. I did the remark at that time: http://lists.debian.org/debian-user-french/2010/08/msg00082.html So, again, this is really misleading for the end user. -- Vincent Lefèvre vinc...@vinc17.net - Web: http://www.vinc17.net/ 100% accessible validated (X)HTML - Blog: http://www.vinc17.net/blog/ Work: CR INRIA - computer arithmetic / AriC project (LIP, ENS-Lyon) -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20120308150958.ge3...@xvii.vinc17.org
Re: debian-multimedia.org considered harmful, Was: Unofficial repositories on 'debian' domains
On Tue, Mar 06, 2012 at 10:23:33AM +0900, Norbert Preining wrote: On Di, 06 Mär 2012, Jonas Smedegaard wrote: the Blends framework. I would most probably drop some file /etc/apt/preferences.d/01-disable-dmo.pref in multimedia-config metapackage (where all other metapackages usually And I would file a serious bug against that. There is no reasoning behind that is in any way reasonable. Only because these are providing similar packages starting a hunting down the enemies race is irrational, or even worse, simply stupid. In how far is it stupid that if a metapackage intends to install a set of _Debian_ packages featuring multimedia tasks to make sure that really these packages are installed while enabling a user to install, say acrobat reader in addition without influencing the set of multimedia packages available inside Debian? It is not about hunting down anything but installing reasonable preconfiguration - local admin can override this for sure. I wonder what criterion of serios bug would apply here. Just for the sake of interest because I do not intend to implement this personally. Kind regards Andreas. -- http://fam-tille.de -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20120306091502.gb26...@an3as.eu
Re: debian-multimedia.org considered harmful, Was: Unofficial repositories on 'debian' domains
On Di, 06 Mär 2012, Andreas Tille wrote:
I wonder what criterion of serios bug would apply here. Just for the
sake of interest because I do not intend to implement this personally.
Too lazy to search for it, but overriding a configuration of a
system admin is for sure not allowed. If it would be, I can stop
caring of conffile upgrades ...
What if the next package decides do disable X, login, and whatever?
Is that policy conform?
Anyway, don't care for extending this rubbish discussion.
Norbert
Norbert Preiningpreining@{jaist.ac.jp, logic.at, debian.org}
JAIST, Japan TeX Live Debian Developer
DSA: 0x09C5B094 fp: 14DF 2E6C 0307 BE6D AD76 A9C0 D2BF 4AA3 09C5 B094
FEAKLE (vb.)
To make facial expressions similar to those that old gentlemen make to
young girls in the playground.
--- Douglas Adams, The Meaning of Liff
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20120306104052.gb24...@gamma.logic.tuwien.ac.at
Re: debian-multimedia.org considered harmful, Was: Unofficial repositories on 'debian' domains
Hey. Stupid question... but even for those packages, which Debian provides now itself (by the fine work of the pkg-multimedia-maintainers)... are they build with all the options enabled? I believe to remember that there were some cases where mp4 stuff was disabled then... I surely haven't had to work as closely with Christian as you guys did,.. but I sometimes notified him of packages which used to show up in Debian (libaacs and friends) and he dropped them from DMO. Cheers, Chris. smime.p7s Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
debian-multimedia.org considered harmful, Was: Unofficial repositories on 'debian' domains
On Mon, Mar 5, 2012 at 9:29 AM, Thijs Kinkhorst th...@debian.org wrote: But before getting there, the question is whether the existence of the website (and its popularity) poses problem to Debian reputation and/or to the activity of official Debian multimedia packaging. I think this is a question for the Debian Multimedia Maintainers (as in pkg-multimedia-maintain...@lists.alioth.debian.org) to answer. If they see a problem with debian-multimedia.org, we should get in touch with the website maintainers and solve the issue. Of course, one of the reasons debian-multimedia exists is precisely because it's unofficial: it can package things that Debian out of policy doesn't want to package. This is not something that can necessarily be solved on a packaging level. A recurring problem we have in pkg-multimedia is that debian-multimedia.org provides packages that replace both applications and libraries that we already ship with Debian. Especially for libraries, this can (and in fact, this does happen regularly) lead to crashes which are very hard to diagnose. Therefore, we have a policy to just close a bug with a very short explanation if we notice that the crash involves a package from debian-multimedia.org; everything else is absolutely not worth the trouble. Cf. also [1]. Friendly discussion with the maintainer of debian-multimedia.org to not replace libraries such as libavcodec and friends have failed ultimatively (BTW, that is part of the reason why we've ended up with an epoch of '4', dmo uses epoch '5'); he has repeatedly shown that is not interested in collaborating with pkg-multimedia at all. He also does not seem interested in installing libraries in a way that they do not interfere with 'official' Debian packages (e.g., by changing SONAMES, or installing in private directories, etc.). While debian-multimedia.org has gained a reputation of providing packages, which were desperately lacking in Debian, IMO this repository has turned into a major source of trouble and pissed users provoking flamewars in the recent past. There is still a number of remaining multimedia-related packages that we still lack in Debian, and pkg-multimedia is working on getting at least the most popular ones packaged and uploaded - help, as always, is of course very appreciated. [2] In summary, I can only advise everyone against enabling that repository on any machine. [1] http://wiki.debian.org/DebianMultimedia/FAQ [2] There are also a few additional, non-multimedia related packages, such as acroread and similar non-free stuff. If you really need those, I'd suggest to install them without enabling the repository via apt. -- regards, Reinhard -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/CAJ0cceYKTr9Fgpf9mCCUVpMTQwpZZOtGVKzrA7DroS73!h...@mail.gmail.com
Re: debian-multimedia.org considered harmful, Was: Unofficial repositories on 'debian' domains
On Mon, Mar 05, 2012 at 04:42:50PM +0100, Reinhard Tartler wrote: In summary, I can only advise everyone against enabling that repository on any machine. If I would have time to become a pkg-multimedia member I would try to establish installing multimedia applications via metapackages build be the Blends framework. I would most probably drop some file /etc/apt/preferences.d/01-disable-dmo.pref in multimedia-config metapackage (where all other metapackages usually depend from). This would enable those users who really know what they are doing picking singular packages via well defined preferences from d.m.o if needed and prevent users who blindly inject random sources inside their sources.list from killing their system. Kind regards Andreas. -- http://fam-tille.de -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20120305220409.gg...@an3as.eu
Re: debian-multimedia.org considered harmful, Was: Unofficial repositories on 'debian' domains
On 12-03-05 at 11:04pm, Andreas Tille wrote: On Mon, Mar 05, 2012 at 04:42:50PM +0100, Reinhard Tartler wrote: In summary, I can only advise everyone against enabling that repository on any machine. If I would have time to become a pkg-multimedia member I would try to establish installing multimedia applications via metapackages build be the Blends framework. I would most probably drop some file /etc/apt/preferences.d/01-disable-dmo.pref in multimedia-config metapackage (where all other metapackages usually depend from). This would enable those users who really know what they are doing picking singular packages via well defined preferences from d.m.o if needed and prevent users who blindly inject random sources inside their sources.list from killing their system. Please let us stop this deroute. Yes, d-m.o is problematic, but so is potentially *any* package cocktail involving unofficial packages. Heck, even involving only official packages but across well-tested-together repositories. Let's not turn this into a witch hunt. - Jonas -- * Jonas Smedegaard - idealist Internet-arkitekt * Tlf.: +45 40843136 Website: http://dr.jones.dk/ [x] quote me freely [ ] ask before reusing [ ] keep private signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: debian-multimedia.org considered harmful, Was: Unofficial repositories on 'debian' domains
On Di, 06 Mär 2012, Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
the Blends framework. I would most probably drop some file
/etc/apt/preferences.d/01-disable-dmo.pref
in multimedia-config metapackage (where all other metapackages usually
And I would file a serious bug against that. There is no reasoning
behind that is in any way reasonable.
Only because these are providing similar packages starting
a hunting down the enemies race is irrational, or even worse,
simply stupid.
Best wishes
Norbert
Norbert Preiningpreining@{jaist.ac.jp, logic.at, debian.org}
JAIST, Japan TeX Live Debian Developer
DSA: 0x09C5B094 fp: 14DF 2E6C 0307 BE6D AD76 A9C0 D2BF 4AA3 09C5 B094
BRADFORD
A school teacher's old hairy jacket, now severely discoloured by chalk
dust, ink, egg and the precipitations of unedifying chemical
reactions.
--- Douglas Adams, The Meaning of Liff
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20120306012333.gc27...@gamma.logic.tuwien.ac.at
