Re: mplayer 1.0pre7
Hello A Mennucc, * A Mennucc [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2005-04-27 09:41]: I had forgotten mplayer_1.0pre7.orig.tar.gz now it is there [...] any progress? regards nico -- Nico Golde - JAB: [EMAIL PROTECTED] | GPG: 0x73647CFF http://www.ngolde.de | http://www.muttng.org | http://grml.org VIM has two modes - the one in which it beeps and the one in which it doesn't -- encrypted mail preferred pgp6iak3Bs78c.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: mplayer 1.0pre7
Le Tue, 26 Apr 2005 20:30:06 +0200, Mario Fux a écrit : Am Dienstag, 26. April 2005 01.29 schrieb Jeroen van Wolffelaar: But what is the difference of mplayers encoding capabilities to ffmpegs encoding capabilities (from it's description: encoding formats (MPEG, DivX, MPEG4, AC3, DV, ...).) which is in unstable and testing? There could be no difference for the capabilites that ffmpeg have ... as ffmpeg is mplayer (they also have taken maintainership as anyway they where already big contributors). mplayer is mostly an api and a player/encoder frontend to ffmpeg and an avifile like windows codec layer (both of which are in debian). I wonder if mplayer is the right place to strip the encoding (though it would be usefull if mplayer was able to run with a stripped ffmpeg or at least with stub encoding functions in the codecs'implementations). afaik ffmpeg has slipped through easely as it became the basis of xine. Though it is where all the patents lays. The avifile like windows codec wrapper have the same issues though we now mplayer already survive the codec missing. Cheers Alban -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: mplayer 1.0pre7
Le mercredi 27 avril 2005 à 10:17 +1000, Paul TBBle Hampson a écrit : (if I recall, A52 decoding is statically linked into xine, so it shouldn't be a problem to have mplayer statically link and A52 decoder too). Xine isn't linked to the A52 decoder, see #301638. -- .''`. Josselin Mouette/\./\ : :' : [EMAIL PROTECTED] `. `'[EMAIL PROTECTED] `- Debian GNU/Linux -- The power of freedom
Re: mplayer 1.0pre7
David Nusinow wrote: On Mon, Apr 25, 2005 at 08:51:04PM +0200, Joerg Jaspert wrote: On 10270 March 1977, Petter Reinholdtsen wrote: The list used to be 200 packages long. It is now ~20 packages long. It was somewhere around 600. Showoff :-) (Thank you and the other ftpmasters for blasting through the queue so fast) - David Nusinow OK, that's great to know. Well, I hope mplayer gets some renewed attention then. Jeff -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: mplayer 1.0pre7
I had forgotten mplayer_1.0pre7.orig.tar.gz now it is there A Mennucc wrote: hi mplayer 1.0pre7 is ready and packaged at http://tonelli.sns.it/pub/mplayer/sarge a. ps: still no news from ftpmasters... hope they at least will try to read http://people.debian.org/~mjr/mplayer.html -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: mplayer 1.0pre7
Am Dienstag, 26. April 2005 01.29 schrieb Jeroen van Wolffelaar: Morning Thanks for your explanations and don't take my mail as rant, it's just a question. On Mon, Apr 25, 2005 at 04:34:41PM +0200, A Mennucc wrote: mplayer 1.0pre7 is ready and packaged at http://tonelli.sns.it/pub/mplayer/sarge a. ps: still no news from ftpmasters... hope they at least will try to read http://people.debian.org/~mjr/mplayer.html [snip] - Patents: The big issue with mplayer a.t.m. I'm myself not very following the patent stuff, but as far as I understood, certain patents hold by the MPEG organisation, esp. those w.r.t. encoding of MPEG data streams, are actively being enforced, (again afaik) in the United States in particular. See [1] for more information of what I believe is relevant here. Unfortunately, links there mostly either shine in unavailability (404 etc) or utter vagueness and non-information (I couldn't find any bit of useful patenting information at [2], for example). The FFII had more useful information at [3]. All this seems to concentrate on MPEG-related *encoding* though, and not to decoding. Moreover, Debian contains plenty of MPEG-related decoding software, and the FTP-master policy at least w.r.t. audio MPEG decoding has always been to not let supposed patents in this area stand in the way of distributing this software, on the basis that it seems to be an unenforceable patent, or at least, it isn't enforced (and giving in to any patent would mean Debian could not distribute anything). I see no reason why MPEG videa decoding would be different in this respect, again, to the best of my knowledge. So, adding these two tentative[4] conclusions together, it seems likely that if mplayer were demonstrated with reasonable certainty to be free of MPEG-encoding code, it would be acceptable for inclusion in main as far as the FTP-masters are concerned (note: We're not (yet?) saying it's *required* to strip MPEG encoding stuff, but in my personal opinion, it seems likely that this is what it'll turn out to be. Don't take my words on too much value though, maybe stripping this won't be required after all, but in any case, if it isn't there, we don't need to think/discuss about it -- reinclusion of the encoding stuff can then later separately be discussed). But what is the difference of mplayers encoding capabilities to ffmpegs encoding capabilities (from it's description: encoding formats (MPEG, DivX, MPEG4, AC3, DV, ...).) which is in unstable and testing? [snip] thx for all your work Mario -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: mplayer 1.0pre7
On Tue, Apr 26, 2005 at 08:30:06PM +0200, Mario Fux wrote: But what is the difference of mplayers encoding capabilities to ffmpegs encoding capabilities (from it's description: encoding formats (MPEG, DivX, MPEG4, AC3, DV, ...).) which is in unstable and testing? None that I know of, but as I noted, there's a lot of if, maybe, don't know in my mail, also evidenced by the fact that mplayer is still in NEW, and not rejected or accepted. Yes, ffmpeg would be the same issue I mentioned (but it's not sure mplayer doesn't have more issues than that), but just as we have no certainty that mpeg encoding is okay, we also have no certainty that mpeg encoding is *not* okay. So while this is still unclear, we're leaving the situation as it is, not making it potentially worse by accepting mplayer, but also not seeing enough grounds to remove ffmpeg. --Jeroen -- Jeroen van Wolffelaar [EMAIL PROTECTED] (also for Jabber MSN; ICQ: 33944357) http://Jeroen.A-Eskwadraat.nl -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: mplayer 1.0pre7
On Wed, Apr 27, 2005 at 12:59:36AM +0200, Jeroen van Wolffelaar wrote: On Tue, Apr 26, 2005 at 08:30:06PM +0200, Mario Fux wrote: But what is the difference of mplayers encoding capabilities to ffmpegs encoding capabilities (from it's description: encoding formats (MPEG, DivX, MPEG4, AC3, DV, ...).) which is in unstable and testing? None that I know of, but as I noted, there's a lot of if, maybe, don't know in my mail, also evidenced by the fact that mplayer is still in NEW, and not rejected or accepted. Yes, ffmpeg would be the same issue I mentioned (but it's not sure mplayer doesn't have more issues than that), but just as we have no certainty that mpeg encoding is okay, we also have no certainty that mpeg encoding is *not* okay. So while this is still unclear, we're leaving the situation as it is, not making it potentially worse by accepting mplayer, but also not seeing enough grounds to remove ffmpeg. Would this be solved by linking mplayer against the ffmpeg package? I would think it'd be pretty easy to get a safe mplayer into Debian by dropping all the controversial code, and only including things by linking against the code already in Debian, or including code that is already in Debian by other packages (if I recall, A52 decoding is statically linked into xine, so it shouldn't be a problem to have mplayer statically link and A52 decoder too). -- --- 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. --- pgpENjiMopYAp.pgp Description: PGP signature
mplayer 1.0pre7
hi mplayer 1.0pre7 is ready and packaged at http://tonelli.sns.it/pub/mplayer/sarge a. ps: still no news from ftpmasters... hope they at least will try to read http://people.debian.org/~mjr/mplayer.html -- Andrea Mennucc E' un mondo difficile. Che vita intensa! (Tonino Carotone) signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: mplayer 1.0pre7
A Mennucc wrote: hi mplayer 1.0pre7 is ready and packaged at http://tonelli.sns.it/pub/mplayer/sarge a. ps: still no news from ftpmasters... hope they at least will try to read http://people.debian.org/~mjr/mplayer.html FTP Assistants -- member Randall Donald (NEW processing) member Daniel Silverstone (NEW processing) member Joerg Jaspert (NEW processing) Am I correct in assuming NEW processing means this is what you guys volunteered to handle? Did new packages stop getting processed because someone uploaded that hot-babe package? Thanks for doing the work of cleaning up mplayer. I hope it gets included soon. Jeff -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: mplayer 1.0pre7
[Jeff Carr] Did new packages stop getting processed because someone uploaded that hot-babe package? You might find URL:http://qa.debian.org/~anibal/debian-NEW-summary.html slightly illuminating. From that list, I read that the NEW queue processing in general is progressing nicely, and that there are some packages not being processed at all. The list used to be 200 packages long. It is now ~20 packages long. URL:http://ftp-master.debian.org/new.html is the same list with a bit less detail, and higher update frequency. The first list is updated once a day, the second list is updated once per hour, I believe. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: mplayer 1.0pre7
Jeff Carr [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: FTP Assistants -- member Randall Donald (NEW processing) member Daniel Silverstone (NEW processing) member Joerg Jaspert (NEW processing) Am I correct in assuming NEW processing means this is what you guys volunteered to handle? Did new packages stop getting processed because someone uploaded that hot-babe package? Er, no. In fact, the turnaround on NEW processing for uncontroversial uploads has been *fantastic*. I'm seeing turnaround on the order of a day, and not infrequently on the order of an hour or two. If you look at: http://ftp-master.debian.org/new.html it's more clear what's going on; some packages are sitting, but most things are being approved very quickly. mplayer (and hot-babe) are among the ones that are sitting. -- Russ Allbery ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: mplayer 1.0pre7
* Russ Allbery [Mon, 25 Apr 2005 10:47:13 -0700]: it's more clear what's going on; some packages are sitting, but most things are being approved very quickly. mplayer (and hot-babe) are among the ones that are sitting. And as I learnt yesterday, some of the ones sitting are still there because the maintainer hasn't reacted in weeks to mail from ftpmaster pointing out obvious problems with the package. Perhaps it'd be nice in the long term add a column with a short note enumerating the problems, or to CC the ITP bug the mail sent to the maintainer. This way, if a maintainer goes MIA, other interested people can know that the ball is in the maintainer's roof, not in ftpmasters', and offer to help. -- 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: mplayer 1.0pre7
On Mon, Apr 25, 2005 at 07:53:50PM +0200, Adeodato Sim? wrote: * Russ Allbery [Mon, 25 Apr 2005 10:47:13 -0700]: it's more clear what's going on; some packages are sitting, but most things are being approved very quickly. mplayer (and hot-babe) are among the ones that are sitting. And as I learnt yesterday, some of the ones sitting are still there because the maintainer hasn't reacted in weeks to mail from ftpmaster pointing out obvious problems with the package. Perhaps it'd be nice in the long term add a column with a short note enumerating the problems, or to CC the ITP bug the mail sent to the maintainer. This way, if a maintainer goes MIA, other interested people can know that the ball is in the maintainer's roof, not in ftpmasters', and offer to help. Just for the record, while this is true for some packages, this is not the case for mplayer -- the ball is at ftp-masters. --Jeroen -- Jeroen van Wolffelaar [EMAIL PROTECTED] (also for Jabber MSN; ICQ: 33944357) http://Jeroen.A-Eskwadraat.nl -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: mplayer 1.0pre7
On 10270 March 1977, Petter Reinholdtsen wrote: The list used to be 200 packages long. It is now ~20 packages long. It was somewhere around 600. -- bye Joerg Paris Hilton is a woman? Not a hotel? This thread gets more surreal with every post... [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: mplayer 1.0pre7
On Mon, Apr 25, 2005 at 08:51:04PM +0200, Joerg Jaspert wrote: On 10270 March 1977, Petter Reinholdtsen wrote: The list used to be 200 packages long. It is now ~20 packages long. It was somewhere around 600. Showoff :-) (Thank you and the other ftpmasters for blasting through the queue so fast) - David Nusinow -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: mplayer 1.0pre7
On Mon, Apr 25, 2005 at 04:34:41PM +0200, A Mennucc wrote: mplayer 1.0pre7 is ready and packaged at http://tonelli.sns.it/pub/mplayer/sarge a. ps: still no news from ftpmasters... hope they at least will try to read http://people.debian.org/~mjr/mplayer.html Right, so as an mplayer user and having an interest in its inclusion, I took a look. Note that I'm a member of the FTP team, and occasionally do NEW processing, but the large majority of it has been done by Joerg Jaspert. First thing I noticed was that it's about 700.000 lines of sourse code. That's a lot. Of the potential issues, I'll give you my own, personal opinion, which might or might not be shared by all ftp-masters. - Copyright: I believe consensus is that this case is settled, thanks to the great work by the numerous people involved - Packaging stuff: Of course there are always nitpicks, but IMHO those are not a consideration for whether or not to accept the package, not in the last place because of the long time it's already in the queue. Particular issues that itch the ftp-master that would approve the package are IMHO best done with filing a bug after accepting, I didn't see any serious issues in any case. - Patents: The big issue with mplayer a.t.m. I'm myself not very following the patent stuff, but as far as I understood, certain patents hold by the MPEG organisation, esp. those w.r.t. encoding of MPEG data streams, are actively being enforced, (again afaik) in the United States in particular. See [1] for more information of what I believe is relevant here. Unfortunately, links there mostly either shine in unavailability (404 etc) or utter vagueness and non-information (I couldn't find any bit of useful patenting information at [2], for example). The FFII had more useful information at [3]. All this seems to concentrate on MPEG-related *encoding* though, and not to decoding. Moreover, Debian contains plenty of MPEG-related decoding software, and the FTP-master policy at least w.r.t. audio MPEG decoding has always been to not let supposed patents in this area stand in the way of distributing this software, on the basis that it seems to be an unenforceable patent, or at least, it isn't enforced (and giving in to any patent would mean Debian could not distribute anything). I see no reason why MPEG videa decoding would be different in this respect, again, to the best of my knowledge. So, adding these two tentative[4] conclusions together, it seems likely that if mplayer were demonstrated with reasonable certainty to be free of MPEG-encoding code, it would be acceptable for inclusion in main as far as the FTP-masters are concerned (note: We're not (yet?) saying it's *required* to strip MPEG encoding stuff, but in my personal opinion, it seems likely that this is what it'll turn out to be. Don't take my words on too much value though, maybe stripping this won't be required after all, but in any case, if it isn't there, we don't need to think/discuss about it -- reinclusion of the encoding stuff can then later separately be discussed). I must mention one big 'but' though: as mentioned above, patent stuff isn't my expertise, and I could easily have missed a patent (or other) issue. MPlayer is definitely a hairy subject, unfortunately, and that's the reason for the delay in processing it[5], it requires careful research and reasonable deal of attention to boring patent stuff. I hope this helps, --Jeroen [1] http://www.mpeg.org/MPEG/starting-points.html#ipr [2] http://www.licensing.philips.com/information/mpeg/ [3] http://swpat.ffii.org/patents/effects/mpeg/index.en.html [4] Barring mistakes in my reasoning [5] The 'suboptimal' communication has other reasons that will no doubt be talked about in the next FTP-master flame[6], so I'm not inclined to comment on that [6] I've not yet been informed about its ETA -- Jeroen van Wolffelaar [EMAIL PROTECTED] (also for Jabber MSN; ICQ: 33944357) http://Jeroen.A-Eskwadraat.nl -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: mplayer 1.0pre7
A Mennucc wrote: mplayer 1.0pre7 is ready and packaged at http://tonelli.sns.it/pub/mplayer/sarge If you are familiar with Christian Marillat's unofficial packages from http://debian.video.free.fr/, would you mind summarising the major differences between his package and yours? I'm just curious to see what formats, etc, had to be removed for Mplayer to be accepted into Debian. The script that downloads binary codecs for unsupported media types is a nice touch. I see that it downloads the codecs from (mirrors of) Mplayer's own site; I guess therefore that having the script check cryptographic signatures of the downloaded files is out of the question. The script should probably be altered to check the downloaded files against the MD5SUMS file on the Mplayer mirrors, however. Anyway, thanks for preparing the package and dowsing the flames; I hope it's accepted into the archive soon! -- Sam Morris http://robots.org.uk/ PGP key id 5EA01078 3412 EA18 1277 354B 991B C869 B219 7FDB 5EA0 1078 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
