Re: NEW processing slowdown (Was: FAQ, Re: new mplayer)

[Francesco P. Lovergine]

On Sat, Oct 21, 2006 at 01:34:14PM +0200, Petter Reinholdtsen wrote:
> I suspect something need to be done with the NEW process, as adding
> more people seem to only improve the situation for a limited time.
> Perhaps it could be optimized to make it less time consuming for those
> processing it, or perhaps it need a complete redesign to avoid the
> current bottleneck.  I'm not sure, as I only see it from the outside
> through http://ftp-master.debian.org/new.html>.

AFAIK the real issue is auditing. Auditing task is slow and prone 
to bothering who does that. IMHO adding people to do that is the
only way to go, but for removing auditing (which is not acceptable).
This is the same reason why none can sponsor dozen of packages
without lowering reviewing quality.

-- 
Francesco P. Lovergine


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

NEW processing slowdown (Was: FAQ, Re: new mplayer)

[Petter Reinholdtsen]

[Tshepang Lekhonkhobe]
> I don't know if this is answered elswhere, but how come it is still
> stuck in NEW?

The speed of NEW processing have slowed down significantly this
autumn.  There used to be enough people working on it, but at the
moment there are too few doing it.  This summer, it was down to 22
packages, and now it is 132 packages.

I suspect something need to be done with the NEW process, as adding
more people seem to only improve the situation for a limited time.
Perhaps it could be optimized to make it less time consuming for those
processing it, or perhaps it need a complete redesign to avoid the
current bottleneck.  I'm not sure, as I only see it from the outside
through http://ftp-master.debian.org/new.html>.

Friendly,
-- 
Petter Reinholdtsen


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: FAQ, Re: new mplayer

[Tshepang Lekhonkhobe]

On 9/26/06, A Mennucc <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

hi everybody

I just now notice the debate on mplayer going on;
so here are a few answers


[snip: mplayer is okay to go in]

I don't know if this is answered elswhere, but how come it is still
stuck in NEW?


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: new mplayer

[Izak Burger]

On 10/6/06, Anthony DeRobertis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

Not true. Mplayer is the only one with proper support for ASS subtitles.


It is also the only one that plays dvd's without halting halfway (and
in the case of xine, telling me there is a codec problem).  Luckily
Ubuntu has had  player in universe for ages, so on the one box where I
actually watch dvd's it is not a problem :-)


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: new mplayer

[Anthony DeRobertis]

Yavor Doganov wrote:
> I was wondering, what's so important about mplayer?  With totem and
> vlc (and I anticipate there's something similar for KDE) you have
> everything you need. 

Not true. Mplayer is the only one with proper support for ASS subtitles.


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: new mplayer

[Guillem Jover]

Hi,

On Tue, 2006-09-26 at 01:46:42 +0200, Luca Capello wrote:
> FWIW, I cannot build it in a clean and updated-to-latest-sid pbuilder
> (complete script available on request, 10K gzipped):

> Script started on Tue 26 Sep 2006 01:38:35 AM CEST
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]:~/test$ sudo pbuilder build mplayer_1.0~rc1~svn19921.dsc
> [...]
> Checking for DirectFB ... /tmp/mplayer-conf-24598-4424.c:1:30: error: 
> directfb_version.h: No such file or directory
> no (failed to get version)
> [...]

I fixed this the other day, and forgot about it, here's the patch.
I've switched that test completely to pkg-config, hope it's not a
problem.

regards,
guillem
Index: configure
===
--- configure   (revision 20007)
+++ configure   (working copy)
@@ -3701,52 +3701,39 @@
 echocheck "DirectFB"
 if test "$_directfb" = auto ; then
   _directfb=no
-  if linux && test -c /dev/fb0; then
+  if pkg-config --exists 'directfb' ; then
 cat > $TMPC <
 int main(void) { IDirectFB *foo; DirectFBInit(0,0); return 0; }
 EOF
-  for _inc_tmp in "" -I/usr/local/include/directfb \
-  -I/usr/include/directfb -I/usr/local/include -I/usr/include; do
-cc_check $_inc_tmp -ldirectfb && _directfb=yes && \
-  _inc_extra="$_inc_extra $_inc_tmp" && break
-  done
+cc_check `pkg-config --libs --cflags directfb` && _directfb=yes
   fi
 fi
 
 if test "$_directfb" = yes; then
-  cat > $TMPC << EOF
-#include 
-int
-dfb_ver = DIRECTFB_MAJOR_VERSION DIRECTFB_MINOR_VERSION DIRECTFB_MICRO_VERSION
-;
-EOF
-  if $_cc -E $TMPC $_inc_extra > "$TMPO"; then
-_directfb_version=`sed -n 's/^dfb_ver[^1-9]*\(.*\)/\1/p' "$TMPO" | tr -d 
'() '`
-_def_directfb_version="#define DIRECTFBVERSION $_directfb_version"
-if test "$_directfb_version" -ge 913; then
-   _res_comment="$_directfb_version"
-else
-_def_directfb_version='#undef DIRECTFBVERSION'
-   _directfb=no
-   _res_comment="version >=0.9.13 required"
-fi
+  _directfb_version=`pkg-config --modversion directfb`
+  _directfb_version_c=`echo $_directfb_version | sed 's/^0*//' | tr -d '. '`
+  _def_directfb_version="#define DIRECTFBVERSION $_directfb_version_c"
+  if pkg-config --atleast-version='0.9.13' directfb ; then
+_res_comment="$_directfb_version"
   else
+_def_directfb_version='#undef DIRECTFBVERSION'
 _directfb=no
-_res_comment="failed to get version"
+_res_comment="version >=0.9.13 required"
   fi
 fi
 echores "$_directfb"
 
 if test "$_directfb" = yes ; then
   _def_directfb='#define HAVE_DIRECTFB 1'
-  if test "$_directfb_version" -ge 913; then
+  if pkg-config --atleast-version='0.9.13' directfb ; then
 _vosrc="$_vosrc vo_directfb2.c"
 _vomodules="directfb $_vomodules"
-_ld_directfb='-ldirectfb'
+_ld_directfb="`pkg-config --libs directfb`"
+_inc_extra="$_inc_extra `pkg-config --cflags directfb`"
   fi
 
-  if test "$_directfb_version" -ge 915; then
+  if pkg-config --atleast-version='0.9.15' directfb ; then
 _vosrc="$_vosrc vo_dfbmga.c"
 _vomodules="dfbmga $_vomodules"
   fi

Re: new mplayer

[Wouter Verhelst]

On Fri, Sep 22, 2006 at 12:01:32AM +0300, Yavor Doganov wrote:
> I was wondering, what's so important about mplayer?  With totem and
> vlc (and I anticipate there's something similar for KDE) you have
> everything you need.

Except that mplayer is blazingly fast in comparison.
. Most bugs that I mention in that blog
post have been fixed in the mean time (it's really dated 2004-11-01
rather than whatever my blog thinks it is), but the performance
difference is still there.

> I've never tried mplayer and I don't know how it looks or what it
> does, so that's just my uneducated guess.

Clearly.

-- 
 Home is where you have to wash the dishes.
  -- #debian-devel, Freenode, 2004-09-22


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

FAQ, Re: new mplayer

[A Mennucc]

hi everybody

I just now notice the debate on mplayer going on;
so here are a few answers

[many people]
> MPlayer dev team and Debian do not work together

this is not the case.

I have been working with Diego Biurrun (of the mplayer team)
and Joerg Jaspert (of ftp-master team)

many changes that Joerg asked have been applied directly
by Diego into SVN

this is why this package is a SVN snapshot

> Please tell me what's wrong with current package and what can we
> do to make it better and stop saying me it's license issue.

in July, Joerg reviewed the mplayer package in NEW and listed
many issues; most of them regards the licenses

 Since MPlayer incorporates code from many sources, it needs to
properly document this fact ; this was done,
by adding all necessary licenses and copyrights statements
both in upstream code (thanks to Diego) and in
debian/copyright file . Moreover now Mplayer
documents the differences between its shipped version
of libraries such as FFMPEG, and the upstream version ;
this is again done to comply with GPL .

 [Andrew Donnellan ]
> Since when was MPlayer acceptable in the Debian archive?

mplayer is in the NEW queue (sorry for the misunderstanding)

 [Yavor Doganov]
> I was wondering, what's so important about mplayer?

it works quite well for me ;  e.g. , I have a digital camera
that can record movies (MPEG4 in MOV) , last time I tried
(~1 month ago) totem and xine reproduced my movies with skippy audio ;
moreover , when I tried ~1 year ago, mplayer was capable
of playing DVDs on my Pentium 450, while some other players
were skipping frames .

Of course, other people may prefer other players... that is fine for
me; one nice point of Debian is that it offers all choices,
Gnome vs KDE, Emacs vs Vi vs ... , OpenOffice vs AbiWord ;
so it is just a big shame that mplayer is still missing


 [fEnIo]
> Mplayer comes with his friend mencoder.

Not in Debian, and it probably never will.
At the request of Joerg from ftp-master team, I even deleted mencoder.c
from the tarball, to make it clear that we do not want to incur in any
patent problem.

> Yes, I know there won't be w32codecs package in Debian, but even
> mplayer would be great addition.

there is a script for downloading those


a.

ps: feel free to ask more questions; if you want a quick answer, CC me, 
I do not read d-devel usually



--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: new mplayer

[Luca Capello]

Hello!

On Fri, 22 Sep 2006 16:35:27 +0200, Luca Capello wrote:
> Cc:ing directly Andrea and Dariush (the Debian maintainer) to be
> sure they read my post, hope you don't mind.

Doing it again :-)

> On Thu, 21 Sep 2006 15:36:16 +0200, A Mennucc wrote:
>> I prepared a new mplayer (with help from  Diego Biurrun of the
>> mplayer team)

FWIW, I cannot build it in a clean and updated-to-latest-sid pbuilder
(complete script available on request, 10K gzipped):
=
Script started on Tue 26 Sep 2006 01:38:35 AM CEST
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:~/test$ sudo pbuilder build mplayer_1.0~rc1~svn19921.dsc
I: using fakeroot in build.
pbuilder-buildpackage/i386 $Id: pbuilder-buildpackage-funcs,v 1.31 2006/05/30 
23:45:45 dancer Exp $
$Id: pbuilder-buildpackage,v 1.127 2006/08/15 13:14:25 dancer Exp $

Current time: Tue Sep 26 01:38:45 CEST 2006
pbuilder-time-stamp: 1159227525
Building the build Environment
[...]

Checking for s3fb ... no 
Checking for tdfxvid ... yes 
Checking for tga ... yes 
Checking for DirectFB ... /tmp/mplayer-conf-24598-4424.c:1:30: error: 
directfb_version.h: No such file or directory
no (failed to get version)
Checking for X11 headers presence ... yes (using /usr/include)
Checking for X11 ... yes 
Checking for DPMS ... yes (using Xdpms 4)
[...]

#
if test "19921" ; then echo  "#define VERSION 
\"dev-SVN-r19921-4.1.2-DFSG-free\""  > version.h ; else sh version.sh 
4.1.2-DFSG-free ; fi
touch configure-stamp
dh_testdir
[ -r DOCS/.upstream_ships_docs ] || /usr/bin/make -C DOCS/xml html-chunked
make[1]: Entering directory `/tmp/buildd/mplayer-1.0~rc1~svn19921/DOCS/xml'
mkdir ../HTML
(mkdir ../HTML/en)
/usr/bin/make HTMLDIR=../../HTML/en -C en html-chunked
make[2]: Entering directory `/tmp/buildd/mplayer-1.0~rc1~svn19921/DOCS/xml/en'
rm -f ../../HTML/en/*
../xmllint.sh main.xml
cp -f ../default.css ../../HTML/en/
../xsltproc.sh ../../HTML/en/ ../html-chunk.xsl main.xml
main.xml:25: warning: failed to load external entity 
"/usr/share/sgml/docbook/dtd/xml/4.1.2/docbookx.dtd"
]>
  ^
encoding-guide.xml:1437: parser error : Entity 'mdash' not defined
  boost encoding speed — by about 40-60% in typical cases —
  ^
encoding-guide.xml:1437: parser error : Entity 'mdash' not defined
  boost encoding speed — by about 40-60% in typical cases —
   ^
encoding-guide.xml:1447: parser error : Entity 'nbsp' not defined
  hung on to DivX 3 for years when newer codecs were already doing wonders,
[...]

unable to parse main.xml
make[2]: *** [../../HTML/en/index.html] Error 6
make[2]: Leaving directory `/tmp/buildd/mplayer-1.0~rc1~svn19921/DOCS/xml/en'
make[1]: *** [html-chunked-en] Error 2
make[1]: Leaving directory `/tmp/buildd/mplayer-1.0~rc1~svn19921/DOCS/xml'
make: *** [build-indep] Error 2
pbuilder: Failed autobuilding of package
 -> Aborting with an error
 -> unmounting dev/pts filesystem
 -> unmounting proc filesystem
 -> cleaning the build env 
-> removing directory /var/cache/pbuilder/build//31045 and its 
subdirectories
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:~/test$ exit

Script done on Tue 26 Sep 2006 01:40:21 AM CEST
=

Thx, bye,
Gismo / Luca


pgpwsMvbSeCIb.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: Media players in Debian (was: new mplayer)

[Michelle Konzack]

Am 2006-09-22 13:21:24, schrieb Andreas Tille:
> And, BTW, do we really need Emacs if we have vi?
> 
> 

Why not mcedit?



Thanks, Greetings and nice Day
Michelle Konzack
Systemadministrator
Tamay Dogan Network
Debian GNU/Linux Consultant


-- 
Linux-User #280138 with the Linux Counter, http://counter.li.org/
# Debian GNU/Linux Consultant #
Michelle Konzack   Apt. 917  ICQ #328449886
   50, rue de Soultz MSM LinuxMichi
0033/6/6192519367100 Strasbourg/France   IRC #Debian (irc.icq.com)


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Media players in Debian (was: new mplayer)

[Dariusz Pietrzak]

> > Please tell me what's wrong with *current* package and what can we do to
> IIRC, one of the things that lead to the rejection of the mplayer
> package last time:
> http://lists.mplayerhq.hu/pipermail/mplayer-dev-eng/2006-July/044840.html
 This has been fixed in both upstream (svn of mplayer), and in packaging by
Andrea Mennucc. 
-- 
Dariush Pietrzak,
Key fingerprint = 40D0 9FFB 9939 7320 8294  05E0 BCC7 02C4 75CC 50D9


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Media players in Debian (was: new mplayer)

[Hendrik Sattler]

Am Freitag 22 September 2006 13:21 schrieb Andreas Tille:
> On Fri, 22 Sep 2006, Steinar H. Gunderson wrote:
> > I've heard these claims (ÿÿplayer X should be more than good enough, what
> > do you need mplayer for these days?ÿÿ) for at least the last five years
> > -- it's a difficult claim to refute, since people have rather different
> > viewing habits, different platforms and different needs. For _my_ part,
> > I've still not seen any player that works remotely as reliably over a
> > wide range over file formats and various brokenness as mplayer does.
>
> And, BTW, do we really need Emacs if we have vi?

What is vi? An emacs mode? ;)
But you are right. Except those frontends (totem, kaffeine) that use various 
backends (xine, gstreamer), there are stand-alone solutions like vlc and 
mplayer (and all those share many, many libs).
Every of those concepts, be it xine, gstreamer, vlc or mplayer, offer a 
slightly different way to use it. And all of them have pros and cons.

I could give examples why e.g. I do not like vlc at all but are a happy user 
of kaffeine/xine and mplayer. But to what gain?

HS

Re: Media players in Debian (was: new mplayer)

[Thomas Weber]

Hi, 

Am Samstag, den 23.09.2006, 13:07 +0200 schrieb Bartosz Fenski aka
fEnIo:
> Please tell me what's wrong with *current* package and what can we do to
> make it better and stop saying me it's license issue.

IIRC, one of the things that lead to the rejection of the mplayer
package last time:
http://lists.mplayerhq.hu/pipermail/mplayer-dev-eng/2006-July/044840.html

Regards
Thomas


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Media players in Debian (was: new mplayer)

[Bartosz Fenski aka fEnIo]

On Fri, Sep 22, 2006 at 11:23:58AM +0200, Petter Reinholdtsen wrote:

> I agree, but understand and accept that the license issues need to be
> checked before it is accepted into debian.

I understand that, but mplayer inclusion is a problem since I remember that
mplayer exists. 

I really don't know what have to be checked and why it takes more than
4 years.

Many people contributed much time to make mplayer ready to enter our
archives and as far as I can see they are simply ignored.

Please tell me what's wrong with *current* package and what can we do to
make it better and stop saying me it's license issue.

That's simply boring. Which part of mplayer is non-free for you?

regards
fEnIo

-- 
  ,''`.  Bartosz Fenski | mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] | pgp:0x13fefc40 | irc:fEnIo
 : :' :   32-050 Skawina - Glowackiego 3/15 - malopolskie v. - Poland
 `. `'   phone:+48602383548 | proud Debian maintainer and user
   `-  http://skawina.eu.org | jid:[EMAIL PROTECTED] | rlu:172001


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: Media players in Debian (was: new mplayer)

[Sam Hocevar]

On Fri, Sep 22, 2006, Bartosz Fenski aka fEnIo wrote:

> Mplayer comes with his friend mencoder. I doubt that koffeine, totem, xine,
> vlc have something to offer in that regard.

   You seem rather mistaken. VLC has more encoding and streaming
features than mencoder. http://www.videolan.org/streaming-features.html

-- 
Sam.


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Media players in Debian (was: new mplayer)

[Petter Reinholdtsen]

[Bartosz Fenski]
> Mplayer comes with his friend mencoder. I doubt that koffeine,
> totem, xine, vlc have something to offer in that regard.

Yes, I believe you are right there.  I suspect ffmpeg is the closest
"replacement" for mencoder, thought the feature set is different. :)

> And if I can't play something with vlc I'm almost sure it's playable with
> mplayer + w32codecs.

I've experienced both, movies playable with vlc and not mplayer, and
the other way around.  And vlc will use the w32codecs as well, so
there is not much difference there.

> Yes, I know there won't be w32codecs package in Debian, but even
> mplayer would be great addition.

I agree, but understand and accept that the license issues need to be
checked before it is accepted into debian.

Friendly,
-- 
Petter Reinholdtsen


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: new mplayer

[Luca Capello]

Hello!

Cc:ing directly Andrea and Dariush (the Debian maintainer) to be sure
they read my post, hope you don't mind.

On Thu, 21 Sep 2006 15:36:16 +0200, A Mennucc wrote:
> I prepared a new mplayer (with help from  Diego Biurrun of the
> mplayer team)

From the package description:

Mplayer is a movie player for LINUX.
.
NOTE: the .tar.gz distributed with Debian does not contain all of the upstream
code. Read README.Debian and copyright for details.
.
MPlayer plays most MPEG, VOB, AVI, OGG/OGM, VIVO,
ASF/WMA/WMV, QT/MOV/MP4, FLI, RM, NuppelVideo, yuv4mpeg, FILM, RoQ, PVA files,
supported by many native, XAnim, RealPlayer, and Win32 DLL codecs. You can
watch VideoCD, SVCD, DVD, 3ivx, RealMedia, and DivX movies too.
.
Another big feature of MPlayer is the wide range of supported output
drivers.  It works with X11, Xv, DGA, OpenGL, SVGAlib, fbdev,
AAlib(*), DirectFB, but you can also use SDL and GGI(*) (and this way
all their drivers) and some lowlevel card-specific drivers (for
Matrox, 3Dfx and Radeon, Mach64, Permedia3) too!  Most of them
supports software or hardware scaling, so you can enjoy movies in
fullscreen.  MPlayer supports also displaying through some hardware MPEG
decoder boards, such as the DVB and DXR3/Hollywood+.
(*) GGI and  AAlib are not currently compiled by default.
=

Some hints:

1) please add the upstream homepage at the end, as per the Developer
   Reference paragraph 6.2.4 [1], like
   =
   [...]
   (*) GGI and  AAlib are not currently compiled by default.
   .
Homepage: http://www.mplayerhq.hu
   =

2) the second paragraph could be better wrapped, especially compared
   to the third one
   =
   .
   MPlayer plays most MPEG, VOB, AVI, OGG/OGM, VIVO, ASF/WMA/WMV,
   QT/MOV/MP4, FLI, RM, NuppelVideo, yuv4mpeg, FILM, RoQ, PVA files,
   supported by many native, XAnim, RealPlayer, and Win32 DLL codecs.
   You can watch VideoCD, SVCD, DVD, 3ivx, RealMedia, and DivX movies too.
   =

3) I'd put the NOTE paragraph at the end of the description, but AFAIK
   there's no consensus on this as I could see from the output of
   `grep-aptavail -FDescription NOTE`

Thx, bye,
Gismo / Luca

Footnotes: 
[1] 
http://www.debian.org/doc/developers-reference/ch-best-pkging-practices.en.html#s-bpp-upstream-info


pgpFEZ9BM2kUg.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: new mplayer

[Josselin Mouette]

Le jeudi 21 septembre 2006 à 10:00 -0600, Joseph Smidt a écrit :
> 
> 
> On 9/21/06, A Mennucc <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> hi
> 
> this mplayer does not contain 'mencoder' the legal status
> of mencoder is not clear enough to include it into Debian
> 
> Thanks for letting me know.  In that case  I will have to look to
> third party stuff. :(

The ffmpeg Debian package has probably all you need to encode videos.
-- 
 .''`.   Josselin Mouette/\./\
: :' :   [EMAIL PROTECTED]
`. `'[EMAIL PROTECTED]
   `-  Debian GNU/Linux -- The power of freedom

Re: new mplayer

[Joseph Smidt]

On 9/21/06, A Mennucc <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
hithis mplayer does not contain 'mencoder' the legal statusof mencoder is not clear enough to include it into Debian
Thanks for letting me know.  In that case  I will have to look to third party stuff. :(

                              Joseph Smidt 
-- -   Joseph Smidt [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: new mplayer

[Joseph Smidt]

I understand the freeze is probably too soon, but I need mplayer for making
movies I need for my physics research.  Please allow this mplayer into Etch.
-- -   Joseph Smidt [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Media players in Debian (was: new mplayer)

[César Martínez Izquierdo]

On 9/22/06, Josselin Mouette <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

Le vendredi 22 septembre 2006 à 12:29 +0200, César Martínez Izquierdo a
écrit :
> I could never see a whole film using Totem or VLC (from Debian).

I don't remember seeing your bug report, could you point me to the bug
number please?


First of all, I don't have time to send bug reports for all the bugs I
find (although I send most of them, when I have to choose I send to
packages which I usually use).
Specially, when I want to see a film, I really want to see the film at
that moment, not after sending some bug reports.

Second, if I'm see a not original film, whose legality is at least
doubtful in some countries, and the player crashes, probably I don't
want to send a bug report about that.

Maybe my fault, anyway...
Regards,

César

Re: Media players in Debian (was: new mplayer)

[Chris Lamb]

On Fri, 22 Sep 2006 13:03:44 +0200, Steinar H. Gunderson wrote:
> I've heard these claims (“player X should be more than good enough,
> what do you need mplayer for these days?”) for at least the last five
> years

Not, "This cannot be played on record^Hmedia player X" ?


Tortoise


-- 
 Chris Lamb, Cambs, UK  WWW: http://chris-lamb.co.uk
  Q. Why is top posting bad? GPG: 0x634F9A20
  A. Because it breaks the logical sequence of discussion


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Re: Media players in Debian (was: new mplayer)

[Josselin Mouette]

Le vendredi 22 septembre 2006 à 12:29 +0200, César Martínez Izquierdo a
écrit :
> I could never see a whole film using Totem or VLC (from Debian).

I don't remember seeing your bug report, could you point me to the bug
number please?
-- 
 .''`.   Josselin Mouette/\./\
: :' :   [EMAIL PROTECTED]
`. `'[EMAIL PROTECTED]
   `-  Debian GNU/Linux -- The power of freedom

Re: Media players in Debian (was: new mplayer)

[Andreas Tille]

On Fri, 22 Sep 2006, Steinar H. Gunderson wrote:


I've heard these claims (ÿÿplayer X should be more than good enough, what do
you need mplayer for these days?ÿÿ) for at least the last five years -- it's a
difficult claim to refute, since people have rather different viewing habits,
different platforms and different needs. For _my_ part, I've still not seen
any player that works remotely as reliably over a wide range over file
formats and various brokenness as mplayer does.


And, BTW, do we really need Emacs if we have vi?



 Andreas.

--
http://fam-tille.de

Re: Media players in Debian (was: new mplayer)

[Steinar H. Gunderson]

On Fri, Sep 22, 2006 at 11:12:10AM +0200, Petter Reinholdtsen wrote:
> And I agree, the tools in Debian are quite good, and I am not sure if
> mplayer have much extra to offer these days. 

I've heard these claims (“player X should be more than good enough, what do
you need mplayer for these days?”) for at least the last five years -- it's a
difficult claim to refute, since people have rather different viewing habits,
different platforms and different needs. For _my_ part, I've still not seen
any player that works remotely as reliably over a wide range over file
formats and various brokenness as mplayer does.

/* Steinar */
-- 
Homepage: http://www.sesse.net/


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: new mplayer

[Reinhard Tartler]

Yavor Doganov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

> I was wondering, what's so important about mplayer?  With totem and
> vlc (and I anticipate there's something similar for KDE) you have
> everything you need.  I've never tried mplayer and I don't know how it
> looks or what it does, so that's just my uneducated guess.

Mplayer is important for a couple of reasons. A really lot of modern
video and audio formats is supported by ffmpeg, which is already in
debian. There is a big overlap of mplayer and ffmpeg developers, and
mplayer tracks ffmpeg development very closely.

It is hard for outsiders to understand why mplayer is (supposely) not
acceptable for debian, while xine, vlc, and even ffmpeg have been in
debian for a very long time. Mplayer is great and free software, and
really pushes development for free (as in speach) modern multimedia
codecs. I think it would be a great win to have mplayer in debian.

-- 
Gruesse/greetings,
Reinhard Tartler, KeyID 945348A4


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Media players in Debian (was: new mplayer)

[George Danchev]

On Friday 22 September 2006 13:29, César Martínez Izquierdo wrote:
> I could never see a whole film using Totem or VLC (from Debian).

That is interesting assertion. I have very good experience with vlc here.
Did you report your issue to the BTS ?

> I do, with mplayer (from Marillat).

In fact, I've never felt a need to use these, so I can't comment on these.

> I think this is enough reason to include Mplayer in Debian.

Are you sure it is not patent encumbered ? Debian is quite a large and 
attractive target to attack for various infringements.

I haven't looked at mplayer svn for quite some time so I can't be sure what 
the latest developments are.

> Another reason is... lots of Debian users download mplayer from
> Marillat or other sources (maybe Marillat may provide some stats)...
> users are not stupid, if lots of them do an extra effort to get a
> program which is not in Debian, you can be sure the program is better
> in some way.

In fact yes, that was my case in the past. Here is what I've used back then 
[1], when upstream used to use CVS, thus you might want to adjust that for 
their SVN now. But since as I already said I'm perfectly fine with vlc and 
didn't feel the need to use that anymore.

[1] svn co http://svn.openfmi.net/debian-addons-bg/mplayer-builder/trunk

-- 
pub 4096R/0E4BD0AB 2003-03-18 
fingerprint 1AE7 7C66 0A26 5BFF DF22 5D55 1C57 0C89 0E4B D0AB 


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Media players in Debian (was: new mplayer)

[César Martínez Izquierdo]

On 9/22/06, Josselin Mouette <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

Le vendredi 22 septembre 2006 à 11:19 +0200, Bartosz Fenski aka fEnIo a
écrit :
> Mplayer comes with his friend mencoder. I doubt that koffeine, totem, xine,
> vlc have something to offer in that regard.

VLC does, and we also have ffmpeg for command-line encoding.

GStreamer in Debian currently doesn't support encoding, but it would
become possible if it was built against Debian's ffmpeg (which requires
quite some work).
--
 .''`.   Josselin Mouette/\./\
: :' :   [EMAIL PROTECTED]
`. `'[EMAIL PROTECTED]
   `-  Debian GNU/Linux -- The power of freedom



I could never see a whole film using Totem or VLC (from Debian).
I do, with mplayer (from Marillat).
I think this is enough reason to include Mplayer in Debian.

Another reason is... lots of Debian users download mplayer from
Marillat or other sources (maybe Marillat may provide some stats)...
users are not stupid, if lots of them do an extra effort to get a
program which is not in Debian, you can be sure the program is better
in some way.

Re: Media players in Debian (was: new mplayer)

[Josselin Mouette]

Le vendredi 22 septembre 2006 à 11:19 +0200, Bartosz Fenski aka fEnIo a
écrit :
> Mplayer comes with his friend mencoder. I doubt that koffeine, totem, xine,
> vlc have something to offer in that regard.

VLC does, and we also have ffmpeg for command-line encoding.

GStreamer in Debian currently doesn't support encoding, but it would
become possible if it was built against Debian's ffmpeg (which requires
quite some work).
-- 
 .''`.   Josselin Mouette/\./\
: :' :   [EMAIL PROTECTED]
`. `'[EMAIL PROTECTED]
   `-  Debian GNU/Linux -- The power of freedom

Re: Media players in Debian (was: new mplayer)

[Andrew Donnellan]

On 9/22/06, Bartosz Fenski aka fEnIo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

Yes, I know there won't be w32codecs package in Debian, but even mplayer
would be great addition.


It would be great if upstream would actually care about legal issues,
licenses and patents in particular. This is pretty much the only thing
stopping Debian from distributing it - it may actually be illegal and
while Marillat is probably too small a target to sue, the Debian
project may be large enough.

--
Andrew Donnellan
http://andrewdonnellan.com
http://ajdlinux.blogspot.com
Jabber - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
GPG - hkp://subkeys.pgp.net 0x5D4C0C58
---
Member of Linux Australia - http://linux.org.au
Debian user - http://debian.org
Get free rewards - http://ezyrewards.com/?id=23484
OpenNIC user - http://www.opennic.unrated.net


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Media players in Debian (was: new mplayer)

[Bartosz Fenski aka fEnIo]

On Fri, Sep 22, 2006 at 11:12:10AM +0200, Petter Reinholdtsen wrote:
> > I was wondering, what's so important about mplayer?  With totem and
> > vlc (and I anticipate there's something similar for KDE) you have
> > everything you need.
> 
> I believe kaffeine is the totem equivalent for KDE.  And I agree, the
> tools in Debian are quite good, and I am not sure if mplayer have much
> extra to offer these days.  There is the question of libdvdcss2 (for
> DVD playing) and some codeces missing, but the situation is improving
> there too. :) There is also gnash, the flash player.  It is able to
> run quite a few flash files, but lack video support still.

Mplayer comes with his friend mencoder. I doubt that koffeine, totem, xine,
vlc have something to offer in that regard.

And if I can't play something with vlc I'm almost sure it's playable with
mplayer + w32codecs.

Yes, I know there won't be w32codecs package in Debian, but even mplayer
would be great addition.

regards
fEnIo

-- 
  ,''`.  Bartosz Fenski | mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] | pgp:0x13fefc40 | irc:fEnIo
 : :' :   32-050 Skawina - Glowackiego 3/15 - malopolskie v. - Poland
 `. `'   phone:+48602383548 | proud Debian maintainer and user
   `-  http://skawina.eu.org | jid:[EMAIL PROTECTED] | rlu:172001


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Media players in Debian (was: new mplayer)

[Petter Reinholdtsen]

[Yavor Doganov]
> I was wondering, what's so important about mplayer?  With totem and
> vlc (and I anticipate there's something similar for KDE) you have
> everything you need.

I believe kaffeine is the totem equivalent for KDE.  And I agree, the
tools in Debian are quite good, and I am not sure if mplayer have much
extra to offer these days.  There is the question of libdvdcss2 (for
DVD playing) and some codeces missing, but the situation is improving
there too. :) There is also gnash, the flash player.  It is able to
run quite a few flash files, but lack video support still.

Friendly,
-- 
Petter Reinholdtsen


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: new mplayer

[Yavor Doganov]

Andrew Donnellan wrote:
> 
> Since when was MPlayer acceptable in the Debian archive?

I think he meant NEW, not incoming.  But let's not resurrect old
discussions.

I was wondering, what's so important about mplayer?  With totem and
vlc (and I anticipate there's something similar for KDE) you have
everything you need.  I've never tried mplayer and I don't know how it
looks or what it does, so that's just my uneducated guess.


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: new mplayer

[Andrew Donnellan]

On 9/21/06, A Mennucc <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

hi everybody

I prepared a new mplayer (with help from  Diego Biurrun of the mplayer team)

it has version 1.0~rc1~svn19921
(note that I have decided to use the new ~ element, so this version
appears to be older than 1.0rc1 or 1.0pre8 ; you may need
to manually use dpkg to install it)

it was uploaded into Debian incoming, and it is available from
 http://tonelli.sns.it/pub/mplayer/etch/



Since when was MPlayer acceptable in the Debian archive?

--
Andrew Donnellan
http://andrewdonnellan.com
http://ajdlinux.blogspot.com
Jabber - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
GPG - hkp://subkeys.pgp.net 0x5D4C0C58
---
Member of Linux Australia - http://linux.org.au
Debian user - http://debian.org
Get free rewards - http://ezyrewards.com/?id=23484
OpenNIC user - http://www.opennic.unrated.net


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

new mplayer

[A Mennucc]

hi everybody

I prepared a new mplayer (with help from  Diego Biurrun of the mplayer team)

it has version 1.0~rc1~svn19921 
(note that I have decided to use the new ~ element, so this version
appears to be older than 1.0rc1 or 1.0pre8 ; you may need
to manually use dpkg to install it)

it was uploaded into Debian incoming, and it is available from
 http://tonelli.sns.it/pub/mplayer/etch/

a.

-- 
Andrea Mennucc
 "E' un mondo difficile. Che vita intensa!" (Tonino Carotone)


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: new mplayer 1.0pre7try2 package

[John Hasler]

Andrew writes:
> Aren't we in a similar situation with other stuff that is in main
> already?  rsync springs to mind.

Don't forget the Linux kernel.
-- 
John Hasler


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: new mplayer 1.0pre7try2 package

[Anthony Towns]

On Sat, Jan 21, 2006 at 04:07:51PM +1000, Andrew Pollock wrote:
> On Sat, Jan 21, 2006 at 06:06:36AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> > On Fri, Jan 20, 2006 at 12:08:39PM -0500, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
> > > aj@azure.humbug.org.au wrote:
> > > >mplayer has had an explicit warning from upstream that it's patented;
> > > The proposed tarball for Debian has stuff excised left and right in
> > > order to guarantee legality.  Just check that the patented stuff was
> > > excised, right?
> > If you can demonstrate that there's nothing in there that's potentially
> > patented, sure. That seems pretty unlikely, though.
> Aren't we in a similar situation with other stuff that is in main already?
> rsync springs to mind.

The rsync related patents are, ttbomk, limited to syncing in a different
manner to what rsync actually does, though rproxy or librsync might be
affected. There are also prior art issues, and whether the rsync suite
of programs is actually covered in the first place. The idea is to get
an idea of what the patent claims are, to see how related they are,
and to see whether the owner of the patent actually cares; not to prove
beyond a doubt there's no possibility of any patent infringement. Though
if you can do the latter, that's obviously good too.

Cheers,
aj



signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: new mplayer 1.0pre7try2 package

[Andreas Schuldei]

* Anthony Towns  [2006-01-21 06:06:36]:
> No, we have real problems with video codec stuff in Debian and they need
> to be resolved thoroughly, not expediently.

i was under the impression that the ftp-master team had started
to work on that several month ago, shortly before the last mention
of this on [EMAIL PROTECTED] is that the case?



signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: new mplayer 1.0pre7try2 package

[Andrew Pollock]

On Sat, Jan 21, 2006 at 06:06:36AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 20, 2006 at 12:08:39PM -0500, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
> > aj@azure.humbug.org.au wrote:
> > >mplayer has had an explicit warning from upstream that it's patented;
> > The proposed tarball for Debian has stuff excised left and right in
> > order to guarantee legality.  Just check that the patented stuff was
> > excised, right?
> 
> If you can demonstrate that there's nothing in there that's potentially
> patented, sure. That seems pretty unlikely, though.

Aren't we in a similar situation with other stuff that is in main already?
rsync springs to mind.

regards

Andrew


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: new mplayer 1.0pre7try2 package

[Anthony Towns]

On Fri, Jan 20, 2006 at 12:08:39PM -0500, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
> aj@azure.humbug.org.au wrote:
> >mplayer has had an explicit warning from upstream that it's patented;
> The proposed tarball for Debian has stuff excised left and right in
> order to guarantee legality.  Just check that the patented stuff was
> excised, right?

If you can demonstrate that there's nothing in there that's potentially
patented, sure. That seems pretty unlikely, though.

> mplayer should go in if it links to the ffmpeg library in Debian, and its
> own copies of any mp3 and AAC encoding stuff are removed.   Right?

No, we have real problems with video codec stuff in Debian and they need
to be resolved thoroughly, not expediently.

Cheers,
aj



signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: new mplayer 1.0pre7try2 package

[Ron Johnson]

On Fri, 2006-01-20 at 22:29 +0100, Joerg Jaspert wrote:
> On 10540 March 1977, Christian Marillat wrote:
> 
> >> Right, you've got a list of reasons why it got rejected and half
> >> of that is still true.
> > I still don't see why rte can't enter in main, when ffmpeg is already
> > in main and does the same.
> 
> Two bads doesnt make one good, so we stay with one bad.  Or
> Just because foo killed bar you dont go and kill baz.

Sure it does, if you don't get punished for it.

Other relevant phrases are "precedent" (for all the Progressives
worried that Alito will turn the US into a fascist theocracy) and
"slippery slope" (for Republicans remembering "Sliding Towards
Gomorrah").

-- 
-
Ron Johnson, Jr.
Jefferson, LA USA

"A C program is like a fast dance on a newly waxed dance floor by
people carrying razors."
Waldi Ravens


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: new mplayer 1.0pre7try2 package

[Joerg Jaspert]

On 10540 March 1977, Christian Marillat wrote:

>> Right, you've got a list of reasons why it got rejected and half
>> of that is still true.
> I still don't see why rte can't enter in main, when ffmpeg is already
> in main and does the same.

Two bads doesnt make one good, so we stay with one bad.  Or
Just because foo killed bar you dont go and kill baz.

-- 
bye Joerg
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Windows ME? Mit 13? Kann der nicht lieber Drogen nehmen wie andere Kinder
in dem Alter?


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: new mplayer 1.0pre7try2 package

[Nathanael Nerode]

aj@azure.humbug.org.au wrote:
>mplayer has had an explicit warning from upstream that it's patented;
The proposed tarball for Debian has stuff excised left and right in
order to guarantee legality.  Just check that the patented stuff was
excised, right?

Alternatively, I would be quite happy with the response "We just can't
trust mplayer's upstream enough to include mplayer; we suspect them of
having done something underhanded and including illegal code we haven't
spotted."

>ffmpeg
>has an explicit document in its packaging indiciating it's okay.

A, the "I stripped the patented parts" comment in 
README.Debian.

All right.  Sorry!

So, we have a solid summary, which could be a FAQ answer:

mplayer should go in if it links to the ffmpeg library in Debian, and its
own copies of any mp3 and AAC encoding stuff are removed.   Right?

Likewise xvidcap, I presume?

And rte, as was already stated?  (And sorry for not giving credit to Joerg
there!)

-- 
Nathanael Nerode  <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

"(Instead, we front-load the flamewars and grudges in
the interest of efficiency.)" --Steve Lanagasek,
http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2005/09/msg01056.html


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: new mplayer 1.0pre7try2 package

[Christian Marillat]

Joerg Jaspert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

> On 10540 March 1977, Christian Marillat wrote:
>
>>> Contrast rte, where the ftpmasters told Marillat exactly what he needed to 
>>> remove to get the package in Debian, and he didn't do it, and declared that 
>>> he would keep uploading it.  Leaving *that* in limbo is totally reasonable.
>> I've *never* received any e-mail saying that.
>
> Right, you've got a list of reasons why it got rejected and half
> of that is still true.

I still don't see why rte can't enter in main, when ffmpeg is already
in main and does the same.

For the record rte is an mpeg encoder. Now from the ffmpeg package
0.cvs20050918-5.1 I see :

,
| $ ffmpeg -formats | grep -i mpeg
| ffmpeg version CVS, build 3276800, Copyright (c) 2000-2004 Fabrice Bellard
|   configuration:  --build i486-linux-gnu --enable-gpl --enable-pp 
--enable-zlib --enable-vorbis --enable-libogg --enable-theora --enable-a52 
--enable-dts --enable-dc1394 --enable-libgsm --disable-debug --prefix=/usr 
|   built on Jan 17 2006 23:46:35, gcc: 4.0.3 20060115 (prerelease) (Debian 
4.0.2-7)
|   E dvd MPEG2 PS format (DVD VOB)
|  DE m4v raw MPEG4 video format
|  D  mov,mp4,m4a,3gp,3g2 QuickTime/MPEG4 format
|   E mp2 MPEG audio layer 2
|  D  mp3 MPEG audio
|  DE mpegMPEG1 System format
|   E mpeg1video  MPEG video
|   E mpeg2video  MPEG2 video
|  DE mpegts  MPEG2 transport stream format
|  D  mpegvideo   MPEG video
|   E svcdMPEG2 PS format (VOB)
|   E vcd MPEG1 System format (VCD)
|   E vob MPEG2 PS format (VOB)
|  DE yuv4mpegpipeYUV4MPEG pipe format
|  DEVSDT mpeg1video
|  DEVSDT mpeg2video
|  DEVSDT mpeg4
|  D VSDT mpegvideo
|  DEVSD  msmpeg4
|  DEVSD  msmpeg4v1
|  DEVSD  msmpeg4v2
`

D is for Decoding and E is for Encoding, so ffmpeg can encode in
mpeg1video and mpeg2video.

Christian


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: new mplayer 1.0pre7try2 package

[Nathanael Nerode]

I wrote:
>> Contrast rte, where the ftpmasters told Marillat exactly what he needed to 
>> remove to get the package in Debian, and he didn't do it, and declared that 
>> he would keep uploading it.  Leaving *that* in limbo is totally reasonable.

Christian Marillat wrote:
>I've *never* received any e-mail saying that.

Perhaps I have misinterpreted the following message from the bug
trail to bug 112699:

>From: Joerg Jaspert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>To: Christian Marillat <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Cc: Joerg Jaspert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Subject: Re: rte_0.4-0.0_i386.changes REJECTED
>Date: Sat, 19 Mar 2005 14:32:55 +0100
>
>On 10233 March 1977, Christian Marillat wrote:
>
>>> Yes, this is the reject of the rte package which was in NEW until now.
>>> Reasons:
>>> - It is an encoding thing, which encodes to formats which are patented, and
>>>   the patent holder are actually enforcing their patents. Found some
>>>   hits for this  with a little question to google.
>> Are you serious ? We have ffmpeg (and soon mencoder in the mplayer
>> package)in Debian who does exactly what rte does and rte can't enter
>> Debian ? ffmpeg should be removed then.
>
>Yes, ffmpeg encoding stuff shouldnt be there, and no, mplayer wont get
>in with mencoder included. I already talked with upstream about it, he
>will talk with Debian maintainer to exclude this thing, before we take a
>closer look at it.

>>> If this reasons are no longer true in the future feel free to
>>>  re-upload it, but for now it is out.
>> Done. I've uploaded 0.5.6-1
>
>As written above: ENCODING is still an issue and therefore at least one
>reason is still true. So dont hope too much it will get through.
>
>-- 
>bye Joerg
>Die d??mmsten H??hne haben die dicksten Eier.

I read this as "remove MPEG encoding and it will go in."  Don't you?

-- 
Nathanael Nerode  <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

Read it and weep.
http://rawstory.com/news/2005/Text_of_Gore_speech_0116.html


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: new mplayer 1.0pre7try2 package

[Joerg Jaspert]

On 10540 March 1977, Christian Marillat wrote:

>> Contrast rte, where the ftpmasters told Marillat exactly what he needed to 
>> remove to get the package in Debian, and he didn't do it, and declared that 
>> he would keep uploading it.  Leaving *that* in limbo is totally reasonable.
> I've *never* received any e-mail saying that.

Right, you've got a list of reasons why it got rejected and half
of that is still true.

-- 
bye Joerg
 I'm kinky and perverse, but my illness is laziness


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: new mplayer 1.0pre7try2 package

[Christian Marillat]

Nathanael Nerode <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

> aj@azure.humbug.org.au:

[...]

> Contrast rte, where the ftpmasters told Marillat exactly what he needed to 
> remove to get the package in Debian, and he didn't do it, and declared that 
> he would keep uploading it.  Leaving *that* in limbo is totally reasonable.

I've *never* received any e-mail saying that.

Christian


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: new mplayer 1.0pre7try2 package

[Anthony Towns]

On Thu, Jan 19, 2006 at 03:15:46PM -0500, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
> And to reiterate:
> If Debian wants to be legally safe w.r.t. mpeg encoder patents, removing some 
> mpeg encoders and not others -- when the others have been pointed out -- is 
> really a bad idea.

Nathanael, stop trying to make decisions on inadequate information and
pressuring others into adopting them.

> They should all be removed until the issue is settled one 
> way or another.  I see no way that leaving some in while excluding others for 
> patent reasons is going to help Debian; if anything it can only make Debian's 
> legal situation worse, because it can be used as evidence that Debian knew 
> about the problems but left the patent-covered code in Debian. Which gets 
> you the extra penalties for "wilful" infringement.

mplayer has had an explicit warning from upstream that it's patented; ffmpeg
has an explicit document in its packaging indiciating it's okay. If you want
to get /actual legal advice/ for us, that would be great.

> Is there an objection, or shall I file a serious bug against ffmpeg?

If you have actual information on why ffmpeg shouldn't be in main that's
great. If you're just playing the "ffmpeg and mplayer should be treated
the same, but I don't know how they should be treated" game, leave it
alone.

Cheers,
aj



signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: new mplayer 1.0pre7try2 package

[Josselin Mouette]

Le jeudi 19 janvier 2006 à 15:15 -0500, Nathanael Nerode a écrit :
> Is there an objection, or shall I file a serious bug against ffmpeg?

The ffmpeg package doesn't include any faad, mp3, or other encoders for
which patents are actively enforced. Therefore there is no reason to
remove it from main.
-- 
 .''`.   Josselin Mouette/\./\
: :' :   [EMAIL PROTECTED]
`. `'[EMAIL PROTECTED]
  `-  Debian GNU/Linux -- The power of freedom


signature.asc
Description: Ceci est une partie de message	numériquement signée

Re: new mplayer 1.0pre7try2 package

[Marco d'Itri]

On Jan 19, Nathanael Nerode <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> Is there an objection, or shall I file a serious bug against ffmpeg?
Yes, I object to asking for removal of MPEG encoders because there is no
good reason to do it.

-- 
ciao,
Marco


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: new mplayer 1.0pre7try2 package

[Joerg Jaspert]

On 10539 March 1977, Nathanael Nerode wrote:

> Congrats Jeroen van Wolfellaar, ftpmaster extraordinare, not afraid to take 
> on 
> the difficult cases (he also managed the REJECT on rte IRRC).

Nope, he didnt reject rte.

-- 
bye Joerg
> 16. What should you do if a security bug is discovered in one of your 
> packages?
1) Notify [EMAIL PROTECTED] ASAP.
2) Notify upstream.
3) Try to create a patch.
4) Find out that Joey was faster.
[...]


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: new mplayer 1.0pre7try2 package

[Nathanael Nerode]

Apologies to AJ and the ftpmasters.  I found the *important* part of the 
thread, which I'd apparently missed during December, in which the
ftpmasters...

drumroll

explain what would be needed for mplayer to go into Debian now, barring
finding additional problems.

Congrats Jeroen van Wolfellaar, ftpmaster extraordinare, not afraid to take on 
the difficult cases (he also managed the REJECT on rte IRRC).
From http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2005/12/msg00888.html:
(Jeroen)
>Basicly: Drop mpeg encoding from mplayer source package -> definitely
>less problems getting through NEW.
...
> I suggest you upload stripping all the mpeg encoding stuff, pending
> answer to that difficult question. However, what you do, is your choice
> -- if you prefer to wait and are not planning to strip mpeg encoding
> support out of the source package, that's not something the ftp-master
> team will have any say on.
...
> I'm not aware of any fundamental reason why mplayer couldn't be in
> Debian.
...
> However, removing
> encoding stuff would bypass the main problem that we have with mplayer
> right now, and then the answer to this question can then be researched
> in parallel to an mplayer-with-only-mpeg-decoding being available from
> Debian.
...
(A Menucc)
> > 3) what other problems should we fix ?
> >  (please read  http://people.debian.org/~mjr/legal/mplayer.html
> >   to know what has been already fixed )

(Jeroen)
> I don't know of any at this moment, but I also cannot promise there
> won't be any more problems that need fixing found between now and the
> package being checked in the NEW queue.

And to reiterate:

If Debian wants to be legally safe w.r.t. mpeg encoder patents, removing some 
mpeg encoders and not others -- when the others have been pointed out -- is 
really a bad idea.  They should all be removed until the issue is settled one 
way or another.  I see no way that leaving some in while excluding others for 
patent reasons is going to help Debian; if anything it can only make Debian's 
legal situation worse, because it can be used as evidence that Debian knew 
about the problems but left the patent-covered code in Debian.  Which gets 
you the extra penalties for "wilful" infringement.

Is there an objection, or shall I file a serious bug against ffmpeg?

Re: new mplayer 1.0pre7try2 package

[Nathanael Nerode]

aj@azure.humbug.org.au:
> MJ Ray's already done such a summary; it's rather trivially inadequate,
> due to the information its summarising being equally inadequate.
> 
> http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2005/12/msg00901.html

So the summary amounts to "patents".  Is that right?  In other words, the 
previous (substantial) copyright issues *are* considered to be cleared up.

Having it REJECTed with a "needs to have algorithms covered by
actively enforced patents identified and removed" would be really helpful.
Having a list of specific areas which are considered too dangerous (ffmpeg 
code, for instance) would be even better.

> Coming to a decision on inadequate information isn't particularly clever.
"Clever" isn't the issue.  I couldn't care less how "clever" the ftpmasters 
are.  Too clever by half, perhaps, with the "leave difficult packages in 
limbo" policy.  Coming to a decision on inadequate information is actually 
very helpful, when it's done in the form of "This is the information we need 
before we can consider this package".  I haven't seen that.

Contrast rte, where the ftpmasters told Marillat exactly what he needed to 
remove to get the package in Debian, and he didn't do it, and declared that 
he would keep uploading it.  Leaving *that* in limbo is totally reasonable.

> Seriously, if you want something useful to happen about this, *thoroughly*
> investigate what's actually going on, with an open mind about the
> possibility of coming to the conclusion that, eg, it's just too much of
> a risk to include mplayer in Debian.
Hey, sure.  Why is it too much of a risk?  Can we get some background here?

Originally it was too much of a risk because upstream was really bad about 
copyrights -- this was a FAQ.  Like I said, some people spent literally years 
straightening that out.  Hence the "what the hell is wrong now?" attitude.

If it really is FFMPEG patent issues -- and I have no idea whether it is -- 
then I believe the packagers would be happy to just remove that code, because 
what some might call a "crippled" mplayer is still better than no mplayer.

Incidentally, the current attitude of "we won't include new packages with 
FFMPEG, but we will include FFMPEG" is legally stupid.  It doesn't get you 
anything if you do get sued; if anything, it helps prove that you knew you 
had a problem, and so were wilfully infringing.  If this is really the issue, 
we should kick out the existing FFMPEG packages (and I'm happy to file the 
serious bugs, if that will get things started).


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: new mplayer 1.0pre7try2 package

[Anthony Towns]

On Thu, Jan 19, 2006 at 11:08:42AM +0100, Petter Reinholdtsen wrote:
> [Eric Dorland]
> > This has probably been covered ad nauseum, but where do we stand in
> > respect to getting mplayer in Debian?
> [Nathanael Nerode]
> > IIRC, the copyright issues were carefully worked out and solved
> > after several years, finally reaching the approval of debian-legal.
> > At which point it went into the NEW queue, to be silently ignored
> > forever by the ftpmasters with no explanation.
> This is becoming an increasingly frequently asked question.  What
> about making a wiki page explaining the status with links to the
> debian-legal thread and other relevant info?  

MJ Ray's already done such a summary; it's rather trivially inadequate,
due to the information its summarising being equally inadequate.

http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2005/12/msg00901.html

> This way we would point
> people there to read the answer, and hopefully the ftpmasters might
> find useful information there too when they find time to make a
> decision?

Coming to a decision on inadequate information isn't particularly clever.

Seriously, if you want something useful to happen about this, *thoroughly*
investigate what's actually going on, with an open mind about the
possibility of coming to the conclusion that, eg, it's just too much of
a risk to include mplayer in Debian.

Cheers,
aj



signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: new mplayer 1.0pre7try2 package

[Petter Reinholdtsen]

[Eric Dorland]
> This has probably been covered ad nauseum, but where do we stand in
> respect to getting mplayer in Debian?

[Nathanael Nerode]
> IIRC, the copyright issues were carefully worked out and solved
> after several years, finally reaching the approval of debian-legal.
> At which point it went into the NEW queue, to be silently ignored
> forever by the ftpmasters with no explanation.

This is becoming an increasingly frequently asked question.  What
about making a wiki page explaining the status with links to the
debian-legal thread and other relevant info?  This way we would point
people there to read the answer, and hopefully the ftpmasters might
find useful information there too when they find time to make a
decision?


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: new mplayer 1.0pre7try2 package

[Nathanael Nerode]

Eric Dorland <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>This has probably been covered ad nauseum, but where do we stand in
>respect to getting mplayer in Debian?

IIRC, the copyright issues were carefully worked out and solved after several 
years, finally reaching the approval of debian-legal.  At which point it went 
into the NEW queue, to be silently ignored forever by the ftpmasters with no 
explanation.

You know where to bitch.


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: new mplayer 1.0pre7try2 package

[Vedran Furač]

A Mennucc wrote:
> hi everybody 
> 
> a new version of mplayer  1.0pre7try2  is available ; add  either
> 
> for the etch version, the line
>  "deb http://tonelli.sns.it/pub/mplayer/etch ./"

Hi!

Now we have mplayer in this repositories:

http://tonelli.sns.it/pub/mplayer/etch
ftp://ftp.nerim.net/debian-marillat/
http://apt.cerkinfo.be

...and probably in more. This could confuse users and lead to dependency
problems. Solution is to have only one repository for every piece of
software that can't be packaged in debian (i.e. non DFSG-free software and
software with patent problems). There is already such a repository, with
lots of packages:

http://debian-unofficial.org/

Could you, or someone else, put mplayer (and xvidcap, rte,...) there, and
notify people that run other repositories with mplayer to remove it or
help you to maintain it?


Regards,

Vedran Furač

Re: new mplayer 1.0pre7try2 package

[Paul TBBle Hampson]

On Mon, Jan 16, 2006 at 06:27:40PM +0100, A Mennucc wrote:

> hi everybody 

> a new version of mplayer  1.0pre7try2  is available ; add  either

> for the etch version, the line
>  "deb http://tonelli.sns.it/pub/mplayer/etch ./"

> or

> for the sarge version, the line
>  "deb http://tonelli.sns.it/pub/mplayer/sarge ./"

> to /etc/apt/source.list .

Interesting... For a proposed-to-go-into-Debian-archive-build, there's
no sid version?

-- 
---
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"

License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.1/au/
---


pgpM32BJIqp8H.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: new mplayer 1.0pre7try2 package

[Eric Dorland]

* A Mennucc ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> 
> hi everybody 
> 
> a new version of mplayer  1.0pre7try2  is available ; add  either
> 
> for the etch version, the line
>  "deb http://tonelli.sns.it/pub/mplayer/etch ./"
> 
> or
> 
> for the sarge version, the line
>  "deb http://tonelli.sns.it/pub/mplayer/sarge ./"
> 
> to /etc/apt/source.list .

This has probably been covered ad nauseum, but where do we stand in
respect to getting mplayer in Debian?

-- 
Eric Dorland <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
ICQ: #61138586, Jabber: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
1024D/16D970C6 097C 4861 9934 27A0 8E1C  2B0A 61E9 8ECF 16D9 70C6

-BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-
Version: 3.12
GCS d- s++: a-- C+++ UL+++ P++ L++ E++ W++ N+ o K- w+ 
O? M++ V-- PS+ PE Y+ PGP++ t++ 5++ X+ R tv++ b+++ DI+ D+ 
G e h! r- y+ 
--END GEEK CODE BLOCK--


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

new mplayer 1.0pre7try2 package

[A Mennucc]

hi everybody 

a new version of mplayer  1.0pre7try2  is available ; add  either

for the etch version, the line
 "deb http://tonelli.sns.it/pub/mplayer/etch ./"

or

for the sarge version, the line
 "deb http://tonelli.sns.it/pub/mplayer/sarge ./"

to /etc/apt/source.list .

a.


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature