subject:"Bug#763148\: Prevent migration to jessie"

On 29.04.2015 12:28, Emilio Pozuelo Monfort wrote:
 On 29/04/15 10:41, Bálint Réczey wrote:
 2015-04-29 9:44 GMT+02:00 Emilio Pozuelo Monfort po...@debian.org:
 On 27/04/15 00:30, Andreas Cadhalpun wrote:
 On 27.04.2015 00:01, Emilio Pozuelo Monfort wrote:
 On 26/04/15 19:06, Andreas Cadhalpun wrote:
 Dear release team,

 as you undoubtedly know: jessie has been released! \o/

 Thus this bug is now obsolete and I'm closing it.

 Please remove the testing migration block of ffmpeg.

 I don't think you understand the problem.

 Having both ffmpeg and libav in the same release is the problem.

 But having mysql-5.5 and mariadb-10.0 in jessie is apparently no
 problem, despite previous claims. What's the difference?

It would really be nice to get an answer for this question.

 So at this moment, that block hint is not going to be removed.

 When will it be removed, if not now?

 Previously Moritz Mühlenhoff wrote [1]:
 After the jessie release a decision between libav and ffmpeg will need
 to be made. It certainly possible to have them co-exist for a year or
 so, but the decision needs to be made before the jessie+1 freeze.

 How do you think this should go forward?

 You could ask the TC to decide between the two. As it happened with #717076 
 for
 example.

The TC is only a last resort, used when the normal processes fail.
It would be much better if they would work.
Therefore I'm planning to discuss a possible transition from
Libav to FFmpeg with the maintainers of the reverse dependencies,
before asking the TC for a resolution.
However this will take time and I don't see any reason to block
ffmpeg from testing during this time.
It could be removed again before stretch is released, should that
prove necessary.

 There is no need to ask TC (yet), it is blocked by Julien:
 https://release.debian.org/britney/hints/jcristau

 Dear Julien,

 Could you please lift the unblock now since Jessie has been released
 and we generally don't ban packages from entering testing based on
 duplicate functionality?
 
 Sigh. This has been said multiple times, but I'll explain it again.
 
 We do block stuff based on security concerns.
 
 Since there are concerns on shipping both libav and ffmpeg,

Just for your information: I'm currently in the process of finding and
fixing FFmpeg's remaining potentially security relevant bugs by systematically
fuzzing its demuxers/decoders with afl [1].
Once that's done (hopefully in the not too far future) security concerns
regarding FFmpeg should become more or less void.

And anyway, as far as I know, the only security support for testing comes
through unstable. So it's not like having FFmpeg in testing would increase
the workload of the security team.

 we won't allow
 ffmpeg unless it is chosen to be the default and there is a clear transition
 plan, so that we can switch from one to the other. Only then will the block 
 hint
 be removed.
 
 Hope that is clear.

Let me take your example of libjpeg-turbo: It has been in testing, when
the TC bug #717076 [2] was filed and during the year the decision was debated 
there,
except for a short time, were it was removed due to concrete unfixed security
issues [3].

It is not clear to me, why a similar treatment should not be possible for 
ffmpeg.

Best regards,
Andreas


1: https://tracker.debian.org/pkg/afl
   BTW: Thanks to Jakub Wilk for packaging afl!
2: https://bugs.debian.org/717076
3: https://bugs.debian.org/729873


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-release-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: https://lists.debian.org/5540c4d8.6020...@googlemail.com

Re: Bug#763148: Prevent migration to jessie

2015-04-29 9:44 GMT+02:00 Emilio Pozuelo Monfort po...@debian.org:
On 27/04/15 00:30, Andreas Cadhalpun wrote:
On 27.04.2015 00:01, Emilio Pozuelo Monfort wrote:
On 26/04/15 19:06, Andreas Cadhalpun wrote:
Dear release team,

as you undoubtedly know: jessie has been released! \o/

Thus this bug is now obsolete and I'm closing it.

Please remove the testing migration block of ffmpeg.

I don't think you understand the problem.

Having both ffmpeg and libav in the same release is the problem.

But having mysql-5.5 and mariadb-10.0 in jessie is apparently no
problem, despite previous claims. What's the difference?

So at this moment, that block hint is not going to be removed.

When will it be removed, if not now?

Previously Moritz Mühlenhoff wrote [1]:
After the jessie release a decision between libav and ffmpeg will need
to be made. It certainly possible to have them co-exist for a year or
so, but the decision needs to be made before the jessie+1 freeze.

How do you think this should go forward?

You could ask the TC to decide between the two. As it happened with #717076
for
example.
There is no need to ask TC (yet), it is blocked by Julien:
https://release.debian.org/britney/hints/jcristau

Dear Julien,

Could you please lift the unblock now since Jessie has been released
and we generally don't ban packages from entering testing based on
duplicate functionality?

Thanks,
Balint

--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-release-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive:
https://lists.debian.org/cak0odpzti8gwoao6u1p6414vyxna0ygxfdspw+z_tuopt0f...@mail.gmail.com

Re: Bug#763148: Prevent migration to jessie

2015-04-29 Thread Emilio Pozuelo Monfort

On 27/04/15 00:30, Andreas Cadhalpun wrote:
 On 27.04.2015 00:01, Emilio Pozuelo Monfort wrote:
 On 26/04/15 19:06, Andreas Cadhalpun wrote:
 Dear release team,

 as you undoubtedly know: jessie has been released! \o/

 Thus this bug is now obsolete and I'm closing it.

 Please remove the testing migration block of ffmpeg.

 I don't think you understand the problem.

 Having both ffmpeg and libav in the same release is the problem.
 
 But having mysql-5.5 and mariadb-10.0 in jessie is apparently no
 problem, despite previous claims. What's the difference?
 
 So at this moment, that block hint is not going to be removed.
 
 When will it be removed, if not now?
 
 Previously Moritz Mühlenhoff wrote [1]:
 After the jessie release a decision between libav and ffmpeg will need
 to be made. It certainly possible to have them co-exist for a year or
 so, but the decision needs to be made before the jessie+1 freeze.
 
 How do you think this should go forward?

You could ask the TC to decide between the two. As it happened with #717076 for
example.

Emilio


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-release-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: https://lists.debian.org/55408bf9.3090...@debian.org

Re: Bug#763148: Prevent migration to jessie

Dear Emilio,

2015-04-29 12:28 GMT+02:00 Emilio Pozuelo Monfort po...@debian.org:
On 29/04/15 10:41, Bálint Réczey wrote:
2015-04-29 9:44 GMT+02:00 Emilio Pozuelo Monfort po...@debian.org:
On 27/04/15 00:30, Andreas Cadhalpun wrote:
On 27.04.2015 00:01, Emilio Pozuelo Monfort wrote:
On 26/04/15 19:06, Andreas Cadhalpun wrote:
Dear release team,

as you undoubtedly know: jessie has been released! \o/

Thus this bug is now obsolete and I'm closing it.

Please remove the testing migration block of ffmpeg.

I don't think you understand the problem.

Having both ffmpeg and libav in the same release is the problem.

But having mysql-5.5 and mariadb-10.0 in jessie is apparently no
problem, despite previous claims. What's the difference?

So at this moment, that block hint is not going to be removed.

When will it be removed, if not now?

How do you think this should go forward?

You could ask the TC to decide between the two. As it happened with #717076
for
example.
There is no need to ask TC (yet), it is blocked by Julien:
https://release.debian.org/britney/hints/jcristau

Dear Julien,

Could you please lift the unblock now since Jessie has been released
and we generally don't ban packages from entering testing based on
duplicate functionality?

Sigh. This has been said multiple times, but I'll explain it again.

We do block stuff based on security concerns.
I have just checked and you are not a member of the Security Team:
https://www.debian.org/intro/organization

The last word from the Security Team was Moritz's email which gave
ffmpeg green light after Jessie's release.

Please clarify if the opinion you shared here is your own private
opinion (as a DD) or the Release Team's official position.
Note that as a DD you can engage in discussions about ffmpeg but can't
keep the block alive.

Since there are concerns on shipping both libav and ffmpeg, we won't allow
ffmpeg unless it is chosen to be the default and there is a clear transition
plan, so that we can switch from one to the other. Only then will the block
hint
be removed.
There are no technical reasons for not having both in testing an I see
this the only fair solution. There are no name- nor symbol collision
between the packages. They co-exist perfectly on my systems, too.

Hope that is clear.
Your opinion is clear but I think you having this opinion should not
be enough to prevent the migration to testing and it would save a lot
of unnecessary debate if you could just let it go and see what
happens.

Cheers,
Balint

--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-release-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive:
https://lists.debian.org/CAK0OdpxjnedqAgMtP=yxriczi50e9sjfjw-wmtabfbte7nc...@mail.gmail.com

Re: Bug#763148: Prevent migration to jessie

2015-04-29 Thread Alessandro Ghedini

On mer, apr 29, 2015 at 02:29:43 +0200, Bálint Réczey wrote:
  Since there are concerns on shipping both libav and ffmpeg, we won't allow
  ffmpeg unless it is chosen to be the default and there is a clear transition
  plan, so that we can switch from one to the other. Only then will the block 
  hint
  be removed.
 There are no technical reasons for not having both in testing an I see
 this the only fair solution. There are no name- nor symbol collision
 between the packages. They co-exist perfectly on my systems, too.

There is at least one reason that I can think of. Assuming the decision to keep
either libav or ffmpeg (not both) stands, if ffmpeg is allowed to migrate and
other packages start depending on it, and if before the stretch release ffmpeg
is deemed not release ready (e.g. if libav is chosen), then more work will be
required to untangle the dependencies and have ffmpeg removed from testing.

Cheers


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: Bug#763148: Prevent migration to jessie

2015-04-29 Thread Joerg Jaspert

On 13926 March 1977, Bálint Réczey wrote:
 2015-04-29 15:38 GMT+02:00 Emilio Pozuelo Monfort po...@debian.org:
 On 29/04/15 14:29, Bálint Réczey wrote:
 The last word from the Security Team was Moritz's email which gave
 ffmpeg green light after Jessie's release.
 No. He said that a decision between libav and ffmpeg would still have to be
 made. IOW, we won't ship Stretch with both libav and ffmpeg.
 He gave a green light to migration, it is very clear.
 Please answer my question, I'm not sure who I am talking to:
 Please clarify if the opinion you shared here is your own private
 opinion (as a DD) or the Release Team's official position.
 Note that as a DD you can engage in discussions about ffmpeg but can't
 keep the block alive.

Reading this thread and how release team members get hit to allow one
package into testing makes me want to use my ftpmaster hat to remove it
entirely from Debian. Have you read their delegation? It's the release
teams right to keep a package out of testing, even if you don't like
them using that right.
And that goes for every single member, so sod the your own private
opinion or teams position, as soon as someone tells you no, then its
a no.

As usual with people using their delegated rights you have ways to go
get to change that. Tons of repeating on a list thread/bug is not one of
them. Especially not as you got told how it can get unblocked.

-- 
bye, Joerg


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-release-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: https://lists.debian.org/871tj2ykvi@delenn.ganneff.de

Re: Bug#763148: Prevent migration to jessie

Hi Joerg,

2015-04-29 18:12 GMT+02:00 Joerg Jaspert jo...@debian.org:
 On 13926 March 1977, Bálint Réczey wrote:
 2015-04-29 15:38 GMT+02:00 Emilio Pozuelo Monfort po...@debian.org:
 On 29/04/15 14:29, Bálint Réczey wrote:
 The last word from the Security Team was Moritz's email which gave
 ffmpeg green light after Jessie's release.
 No. He said that a decision between libav and ffmpeg would still have to be
 made. IOW, we won't ship Stretch with both libav and ffmpeg.
 He gave a green light to migration, it is very clear.
 Please answer my question, I'm not sure who I am talking to:
 Please clarify if the opinion you shared here is your own private
 opinion (as a DD) or the Release Team's official position.
 Note that as a DD you can engage in discussions about ffmpeg but can't
 keep the block alive.

 Reading this thread and how release team members get hit to allow one
 package into testing makes me want to use my ftpmaster hat to remove it
 entirely from Debian. Have you read their delegation? It's the release
Thank you for not removing the package just because there are too many
discussions involving it. I appreciate your patience while I don't
share your feelings.

 teams right to keep a package out of testing, even if you don't like
 them using that right.
 And that goes for every single member, so sod the your own private
 opinion or teams position, as soon as someone tells you no, then its
 a no.

 As usual with people using their delegated rights you have ways to go
 get to change that. Tons of repeating on a list thread/bug is not one of
 them. Especially not as you got told how it can get unblocked.
IMO mandating the choice between the two libraries lacks technical
merit and is not fair to one or the other package maintainer/upstream.
I understand that we have limited resources but if the teams would
quantify the amount of workforce needed to support both libraries
vulunteers may apply to help them out.

Thanks,
Balint


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-release-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: 
https://lists.debian.org/cak0odpxb3ikhqeqdyklazozj3modn3j4nhjznqwqvuw794g...@mail.gmail.com

Re: Bug#763148: Prevent migration to jessie

2015-04-29 Thread Jonathan Wiltshire


(re-sending for the benefit of -release)

On 2015-04-29 12:47, Andreas Cadhalpun wrote:

On 29.04.2015 12:28, Emilio Pozuelo Monfort wrote:

On 29/04/15 10:41, Bálint Réczey wrote:

2015-04-29 9:44 GMT+02:00 Emilio Pozuelo Monfort po...@debian.org:

On 27/04/15 00:30, Andreas Cadhalpun wrote:

On 27.04.2015 00:01, Emilio Pozuelo Monfort wrote:

On 26/04/15 19:06, Andreas Cadhalpun wrote:

Dear release team,

as you undoubtedly know: jessie has been released! \o/

Thus this bug is now obsolete and I'm closing it.

Please remove the testing migration block of ffmpeg.


I don't think you understand the problem.

Having both ffmpeg and libav in the same release is the problem.


But having mysql-5.5 and mariadb-10.0 in jessie is apparently no
problem, despite previous claims. What's the difference?


It would really be nice to get an answer for this question.


mysql-5.5 and mariadb-10.0 in Jessie is not exactly no problem. There 
were extensive discussions before the freeze about which of the *four* 
forks of MySQL would ship in Jessie.


Bear in mind that MySQL and Maria were both already in testing at this 
point. The security team understandably want to support only one fork. 
The maintainers could not agree which it should be.


We eventually arranged to ship two of those four forks in Jessie with a 
view to having only one in Stretch,  easing the transition for users if 
it ends up being Maria. That aim has not changed. Jessie was a 
compromise situation.


This isn't a good direct comparison with ffmpeg/libav since we do not 
have the situation of them both in testing at the moment, and I believe 
that should remain the case until one or the other becomes the obvious 
candidate. We do not want to end up with dependencies on both in testing 
that need to be untangled later.


--
Jonathan Wiltshire  j...@debian.org
Debian Developer http://people.debian.org/~jmw

4096R: 0xD3524C51 / 0A55 B7C5 1223 3942 86EC  74C3 5394 479D D352 4C51

directhex i have six years of solaris sysadmin experience, from
8-10. i am well qualified to say it is made from bonghits
layered on top of bonghits


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-release-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: 
https://lists.debian.org/93eadb5cdcfa024c823bf1407b8e4...@hogwarts.powdarrmonkey.net

Re: Bug#763148: Prevent migration to jessie

Hi Jonathan,

thanks for answering my question.

On 29.04.2015 16:52, Jonathan Wiltshire wrote:
 mysql-5.5 and mariadb-10.0 in Jessie is not exactly no problem.
 There were extensive discussions before the freeze about which of
 the *four* forks of MySQL would ship in Jessie.

 Bear in mind that MySQL and Maria were both already in testing at
 this point.

When I asked Moritz about MySQL and MariaDB [1] in February 2014,
MariaDB 5.5 had been in testing for just two months, while
MariaDB 10.0 went to testing only in November 2014.

 The security team understandably want to support only
 one fork. The maintainers could not agree which it should be.

This is exactl
I don't think that's a fair criterion. FFmpeg would be in testing,
if it wasn't blocked.
Now the justification for the block is that it's not in testing.
That's kind of circular.

 andy how it was with FFmpeg/Libav before the freeze.

 We eventually arranged to ship two of those four forks in Jessie
 with a view to having only one in Stretch,  easing the transition
 for users if it ends up being Maria. That aim has not changed.
 Jessie was a compromise situation.

I would have appreciated if there had been such a compromise solution
for FFmpeg/Libav as well.

 This isn't a good direct comparison with ffmpeg/libav since we do
 not have the situation of them both in testing at the moment,

I don't think that's a fair criterion. FFmpeg would be in testing,
if it wasn't blocked.
Now the justification for the block is that it's not in testing.
That's kind of circular.

 and
 I believe that should remain the case until one or the other
 becomes the obvious candidate. We do not want to end up with
 dependencies on both in testing that need to be untangled later.

That's understandable. But on the other hand, not having FFmpeg
in testing means more work elsewhere and less testing for it.

Best regards,
Andreas

1: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=729203#420


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-release-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: https://lists.debian.org/55411eb9.6000...@googlemail.com

Re: Bug#763148: Prevent migration to jessie

2015-04-29 Thread Moritz Mühlenhoff

Andreas Cadhalpun wrote:

 But having mysql-5.5 and mariadb-10.0 in jessie is apparently no
 problem, despite previous claims. What's the difference?

To properly migrate over a daemon they need to co-exist for a stable
release, while a lib does not. Stretch will only have one of them.

 How do you think this should go forward?

When someone made a strawpoll amongst the multimedia maintainers
last year it boiled down to libav for jessie, since it's now to late.
You should revisit that decision now that the release cycle has started.
(Beside pkg-multimedia-maintainers, this certainly also includes
maintainers like Balint which maintain relevant multimedia apps outside of
pkg-multimedia-maintainers.)

If no convinging/clear majority can be reached, let the CTTE decide.

Having both for a year along each other will only waste people's time. Now
at the beginning of the release cycle is the time to make a decision,
not by dragging things into a year as of today. Picking one of the two
won't be any simpler in 12 months.

Cheers,
Moritz





-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-release-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: https://lists.debian.org/20150429182256.GA28385@pisco.westfalen.local

Re: Bug#763148: Prevent migration to jessie

2015-04-29 Thread Moritz Mühlenhoff

On Wed, Apr 29, 2015 at 08:33:07PM +0200, Andreas Cadhalpun wrote:
  Having both for a year along each other will only waste people's time. Now
  at the beginning of the release cycle is the time to make a decision,
  not by dragging things into a year as of today. Picking one of the two
  won't be any simpler in 12 months.
 
 I just fear that the decision making process will take long, especially
 if the TC has to get involved. (The libjpeg-turbo TC decision took 1 year.)
 
 Having ffmpeg in testing during this time would be nice, e.g. so that people
 using testing can easily compare them.
 
 Was that not what you meant with [1]:
 It certainly possible to have them co-exist for a year or so

Honestly at this point I don't believe we'll need a year to sort out whether
it'll be libav or ffmpeg.

I'll refrain from mentioning my personal preference for now, but IMO
one of the two is preferable in almost all aspects, so picking the lib for
stretch shouldn't take that long.

Cheers,
Moritz


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-release-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: https://lists.debian.org/20150429184711.GA28679@pisco.westfalen.local

Re: Bug#763148: Prevent migration to jessie

2015-04-29 Thread Julien Cristau

On Wed, Apr 29, 2015 at 20:33:07 +0200, Andreas Cadhalpun wrote:

 Having ffmpeg in testing during this time would be nice, e.g. so that people
 using testing can easily compare them.
 
Not really.  It's a library, users don't get to compare, they get to use
whichever one is chosen by the application they're using.

Cheers,
Julien


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: Bug#763148: Prevent migration to jessie

Hi Alessandro,

On 29.04.2015 16:08, Alessandro Ghedini wrote:
 The decision has to be taken *now*, not in one year.

We should start discussing, sure, but I would be surprised if a decision
could be reached in a time frame short enough to qualify as 'now'.

 Last year, just before the freeze, we (the multimedia team) sort of held a 
 vote
 to decide this, but it went in favour of libav. IIRC the reason people voted 
 in
 favour of libav was that we were too close to the freeze to do anything.
 
 Now would be the time to start that discussion again. So, instead of wasting
 energies arguing against the migration block, I suggest you be the one to
 restart that discussion, given that you are the maintainer of ffmpeg.

As I already wrote [1], I plan to start such a discussion. However I thought 
that
meanwhile FFmpeg would be allowed into testing, as this seemed what Moritz
suggested: Have both in testing for a year, while discussing further actions.
Therefore I did not expect that this would be controversial.

Best regards,
Andreas


1: https://bugs.debian.org/763148#188


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-release-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: https://lists.debian.org/554118c7.7010...@googlemail.com

Re: Bug#763148: Prevent migration to jessie

Hi Moritz,

On 29.04.2015 20:22, Moritz Mühlenhoff wrote:
 Andreas Cadhalpun wrote:
 
 But having mysql-5.5 and mariadb-10.0 in jessie is apparently no
 problem, despite previous claims. What's the difference?
 
 To properly migrate over a daemon they need to co-exist for a stable
 release, while a lib does not. Stretch will only have one of them.

That makes sense, thanks for explaining.

 How do you think this should go forward?
 
 When someone made a strawpoll amongst the multimedia maintainers
 last year it boiled down to libav for jessie, since it's now to late.
 You should revisit that decision now that the release cycle has started.
 (Beside pkg-multimedia-maintainers, this certainly also includes
 maintainers like Balint which maintain relevant multimedia apps outside of
 pkg-multimedia-maintainers.)
 
 If no convinging/clear majority can be reached, let the CTTE decide.

That was my plan.

 Having both for a year along each other will only waste people's time. Now
 at the beginning of the release cycle is the time to make a decision,
 not by dragging things into a year as of today. Picking one of the two
 won't be any simpler in 12 months.

I just fear that the decision making process will take long, especially
if the TC has to get involved. (The libjpeg-turbo TC decision took 1 year.)

Having ffmpeg in testing during this time would be nice, e.g. so that people
using testing can easily compare them.

Was that not what you meant with [1]:
It certainly possible to have them co-exist for a year or so

Best regards,
Andreas

1: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=763148#134


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-release-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: https://lists.debian.org/554123e3.7020...@googlemail.com

Re: Bug#763148: Prevent migration to jessie

2015-04-29 Thread Alessio Treglia

Hi Moritz,

On Wed, Apr 29, 2015 at 7:22 PM, Moritz Mühlenhoff j...@inutil.org wrote:
 Having both for a year along each other will only waste people's time. Now
 at the beginning of the release cycle is the time to make a decision,
 not by dragging things into a year as of today. Picking one of the two
 won't be any simpler in 12 months.

I couldn't agree more.
I'm bringing this up to pkg-multimedia-maintainers's attention by
moving this into a separate thread on our mailing list to reduce the
noise here.

Cheers.

-- 
Alessio Treglia  | www.alessiotreglia.com
Debian Developer | ales...@debian.org
Ubuntu Core Developer|  quadris...@ubuntu.com
0416 0004 A827 6E40 BB98 90FB E8A4 8AE5 311D 765A


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-release-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: 
https://lists.debian.org/camhuwoydw0_ntiqchgm1-kxhc05wxiosuwwdip8x4sss1sx...@mail.gmail.com

Re: Bug#763148: Prevent migration to jessie

Hi Julien,

On 29.04.2015 20:40, Julien Cristau wrote:
 On Wed, Apr 29, 2015 at 20:33:07 +0200, Andreas Cadhalpun wrote:
 
 Having ffmpeg in testing during this time would be nice, e.g. so that people
 using testing can easily compare them.

 Not really.  It's a library, users don't get to compare, they get to use
 whichever one is chosen by the application they're using.

It's not only a library, but also a set of command-line tools (the ffmpeg
binary package).

With these command-line tools one can check the libraries. (That's how
a large part of the upstream test-suite works.)

For example, one can verify that bugs in Libav don't exist in FFmpeg,
e.g. #783616 [1].

Best regards,
Andreas

1: https://bugs.debian.org/783616


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-release-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: https://lists.debian.org/55412792.3090...@googlemail.com

Re: Bug#763148: Prevent migration to jessie

Hi Alessio,

On 29.04.2015 15:27, Alessio Treglia wrote:
 On Wed, Apr 29, 2015 at 12:47 PM, Andreas Cadhalpun
 andreas.cadhal...@googlemail.com wrote:
 Therefore I'm planning to discuss a possible transition from
 Libav to FFmpeg with the maintainers of the reverse dependencies,
 before asking the TC for a resolution.
 
 What if one or more maintainers do not agree with you to make his
 packages break away from libav?

As I tried to imply above: If no decision between having both,
only FFmpeg, or only Libav can be reached with normal means,
we have to ask the TC.

 What result are you aiming to achieve?

I'd like to see stretch released with FFmpeg. So either FFmpeg replaces
Libav or the Security Team gets convinced that having both is acceptable.

 Splitting multimedia packages up in two groups, each one depending on
 a different implementation of the same interfaces?

This is a possible outcome, if both are allowed in stretch.

 And on the basis of what?

If both are there, any maintainer can make his own decision, probably
based on upstream preference.

 I feel that we'd better *first* decide on which one between ffmpeg and
 libav we want to keep, and drop the alternative.

I feel that it's not necessary, but possible, to make a Debian-wide
decision between FFmpeg and Libav.

Best regards,
Andreas


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-release-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: https://lists.debian.org/55411ad5.20...@googlemail.com

Re: Bug#763148: Prevent migration to jessie

On 29.04.2015 20:47, Moritz Mühlenhoff wrote:
 On Wed, Apr 29, 2015 at 08:33:07PM +0200, Andreas Cadhalpun wrote:
 Having both for a year along each other will only waste people's time. Now
 at the beginning of the release cycle is the time to make a decision,
 not by dragging things into a year as of today. Picking one of the two
 won't be any simpler in 12 months.

 I just fear that the decision making process will take long, especially
 if the TC has to get involved. (The libjpeg-turbo TC decision took 1 year.)

 Having ffmpeg in testing during this time would be nice, e.g. so that people
 using testing can easily compare them.

 Was that not what you meant with [1]:
 It certainly possible to have them co-exist for a year or so
 
 Honestly at this point I don't believe we'll need a year to sort out whether
 it'll be libav or ffmpeg.
 
 I'll refrain from mentioning my personal preference for now, but IMO
 one of the two is preferable in almost all aspects, so picking the lib for
 stretch shouldn't take that long.

OK, then I'll try start that discussion on pkg-multimedia soon.
But I'll have to take care of something else first.

Best regards,
Andreas


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-release-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: https://lists.debian.org/5541298f.7060...@googlemail.com

Re: Bug#763148: Prevent migration to jessie

Hi Alessandro,

2015-04-29 14:58 GMT+02:00 Alessandro Ghedini gh...@debian.org:
On mer, apr 29, 2015 at 02:29:43 +0200, Bálint Réczey wrote:
Since there are concerns on shipping both libav and ffmpeg, we won't allow
ffmpeg unless it is chosen to be the default and there is a clear
transition
plan, so that we can switch from one to the other. Only then will the
block hint
be removed.
There are no technical reasons for not having both in testing an I see
this the only fair solution. There are no name- nor symbol collision
between the packages. They co-exist perfectly on my systems, too.

There is at least one reason that I can think of. Assuming the decision to
keep
either libav or ffmpeg (not both) stands, if ffmpeg is allowed to migrate and
other packages start depending on it, and if before the stretch release ffmpeg
is deemed not release ready (e.g. if libav is chosen), then more work will be
required to untangle the dependencies and have ffmpeg removed from testing.
We can start the migration one year before the freeze date if only one
of libav/ffmpeg is to be kept in Stretch.
IMO we can keep both. I watched FFmpeg closely and the are very fast
in fixing security issues and in general handling of bugs. OTOH I also
think Libav deserves to be in testing/stable if they can fix their
issues in a timely manner.
If we want to assess the effort of supporting both or either of them
we can count the number of hours spent supporting each on release
management/security support/reverse depenencies' maintainer work.
I spent way more than 80 hours on XBMC/Kodi because of the absence of
FFmpeg in Debian for example.

Cheers,
Balint

--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-release-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive:
https://lists.debian.org/cak0odpw3c8jpjiwbgu4oca+7qms1u8gvk9pxx0sne7fi2mv...@mail.gmail.com

Re: Bug#763148: Prevent migration to jessie

Dear Moritz,

Could you please clarify Security Team's position? Do the Security
Team still want to keep ffmpeg out of testing?

Cheers,
Balint

2015-04-29 15:55 GMT+02:00 Alessio Treglia ales...@debian.org:
 On Wed, Apr 29, 2015 at 2:46 PM, Bálint Réczey bal...@balintreczey.hu wrote:
 He gave a green light to migration, it is very clear.

 If you're thinking of this [1] then yes, it's very clear that is *NOT*
 a green light at all.


 [1] https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=763148#134

 --
 Alessio Treglia  | www.alessiotreglia.com
 Debian Developer | ales...@debian.org
 Ubuntu Core Developer|  quadris...@ubuntu.com
 0416 0004 A827 6E40 BB98 90FB E8A4 8AE5 311D 765A



--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-release-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: 
https://lists.debian.org/cak0odpzwjtyvgit-mpfnhgrkjzuflym3ocodmrqvk97y2...@mail.gmail.com

Re: Bug#763148: Prevent migration to jessie

2015-04-29 Thread Alessio Treglia

On Wed, Apr 29, 2015 at 12:47 PM, Andreas Cadhalpun
andreas.cadhal...@googlemail.com wrote:
 Therefore I'm planning to discuss a possible transition from
 Libav to FFmpeg with the maintainers of the reverse dependencies,
 before asking the TC for a resolution.

What if one or more maintainers do not agree with you to make his
packages break away from libav? What result are you aiming to achieve?
Splitting multimedia packages up in two groups, each one depending on
a different implementation of the same interfaces? And on the basis of
what?

I feel that we'd better *first* decide on which one between ffmpeg and
libav we want to keep, and drop the alternative.

Cheers.

-- 
Alessio Treglia  | www.alessiotreglia.com
Debian Developer | ales...@debian.org
Ubuntu Core Developer|  quadris...@ubuntu.com
0416 0004 A827 6E40 BB98 90FB E8A4 8AE5 311D 765A


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-release-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: 
https://lists.debian.org/CAMHuwoyUBc7v8dw=PZwsBS5wOsLzSDre3+=qlqbrv1noxsb...@mail.gmail.com

Re: Bug#763148: Prevent migration to jessie

2015-04-29 Thread Alessandro Ghedini

On Wed, Apr 29, 2015 at 03:28:40PM +0200, Andreas Cadhalpun wrote:
 Hi Alessandro,
 
 On 29.04.2015 14:58, Alessandro Ghedini wrote:
  On mer, apr 29, 2015 at 02:29:43 +0200, Bálint Réczey wrote:
  Since there are concerns on shipping both libav and ffmpeg, we won't allow
  ffmpeg unless it is chosen to be the default and there is a clear 
  transition
  plan, so that we can switch from one to the other. Only then will the 
  block hint
  be removed.
  There are no technical reasons for not having both in testing an I see
  this the only fair solution. There are no name- nor symbol collision
  between the packages. They co-exist perfectly on my systems, too.
  
  There is at least one reason that I can think of. Assuming the decision to 
  keep
  either libav or ffmpeg (not both) stands,
 
 Great to hear that this is only an assumption and no definitive statement!
 
  if ffmpeg is allowed to migrate and
  other packages start depending on it,
 
 Packages already depend on FFmpeg, simply because they don't work with Libav:

Yes, but they won't migrate to testing either.

  and if before the stretch release ffmpeg
  is deemed not release ready (e.g. if libav is chosen), then more work will 
  be
  required to untangle the dependencies and have ffmpeg removed from testing.
 
 If a preliminary decision is made in e.g. one years time, maintainers would 
 have
 plenty of time to adapt.

The decision has to be taken *now*, not in one year.

Last year, just before the freeze, we (the multimedia team) sort of held a vote
to decide this, but it went in favour of libav. IIRC the reason people voted in
favour of libav was that we were too close to the freeze to do anything.

Now would be the time to start that discussion again. So, instead of wasting
energies arguing against the migration block, I suggest you be the one to
restart that discussion, given that you are the maintainer of ffmpeg.

Cheers


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: Bug#763148: Prevent migration to jessie

2015-04-29 15:38 GMT+02:00 Emilio Pozuelo Monfort po...@debian.org:
 On 29/04/15 14:29, Bálint Réczey wrote:
 The last word from the Security Team was Moritz's email which gave
 ffmpeg green light after Jessie's release.

 No. He said that a decision between libav and ffmpeg would still have to be
 made. IOW, we won't ship Stretch with both libav and ffmpeg.
He gave a green light to migration, it is very clear.
Please answer my question, I'm not sure who I am talking to:
 Please clarify if the opinion you shared here is your own private
 opinion (as a DD) or the Release Team's official position.
 Note that as a DD you can engage in discussions about ffmpeg but can't
 keep the block alive.

Balint


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-release-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: 
https://lists.debian.org/CAK0Odpx=bplxzzzxbh4zz5fzaipoghtjsaxter6z7ign6-g...@mail.gmail.com

Re: Bug#763148: Prevent migration to jessie

2015-04-29 Thread Alessio Treglia

On Wed, Apr 29, 2015 at 2:46 PM, Bálint Réczey bal...@balintreczey.hu wrote:
 He gave a green light to migration, it is very clear.

If you're thinking of this [1] then yes, it's very clear that is *NOT*
a green light at all.


[1] https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=763148#134

-- 
Alessio Treglia  | www.alessiotreglia.com
Debian Developer | ales...@debian.org
Ubuntu Core Developer|  quadris...@ubuntu.com
0416 0004 A827 6E40 BB98 90FB E8A4 8AE5 311D 765A


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-release-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: 
https://lists.debian.org/camhuwoxbgvtcryk0b_wtgcap58wzyggbg+hnp3pkdzk0uxr...@mail.gmail.com

Re: Bug#763148: Prevent migration to jessie

Hi Alessandro,

On 29.04.2015 14:58, Alessandro Ghedini wrote:
 On mer, apr 29, 2015 at 02:29:43 +0200, Bálint Réczey wrote:
 Since there are concerns on shipping both libav and ffmpeg, we won't allow
 ffmpeg unless it is chosen to be the default and there is a clear transition
 plan, so that we can switch from one to the other. Only then will the block 
 hint
 be removed.
 There are no technical reasons for not having both in testing an I see
 this the only fair solution. There are no name- nor symbol collision
 between the packages. They co-exist perfectly on my systems, too.
 
 There is at least one reason that I can think of. Assuming the decision to 
 keep
 either libav or ffmpeg (not both) stands,

Great to hear that this is only an assumption and no definitive statement!

 if ffmpeg is allowed to migrate and
 other packages start depending on it,

Packages already depend on FFmpeg, simply because they don't work with Libav:
pencil2d, vokoscreen, kodi (in NEW [1]), chromium (using embedded copy),
mplayer (ITP: #763826 [2])

 and if before the stretch release ffmpeg
 is deemed not release ready (e.g. if libav is chosen), then more work will be
 required to untangle the dependencies and have ffmpeg removed from testing.

If a preliminary decision is made in e.g. one years time, maintainers would have
plenty of time to adapt.

And if FFmpeg is not allowed into testing, this will mean more work for those
wanting/needing to use it, like e.g. adding patches to not fail completely,
when using Libav.
If the final decision would be to only allow FFmpeg, not having had it in
testing would also mean, well, less testing, of itself and possibly 
reverse-dependencies
using it instead of Libav. (Currently most don't provide versions compiled
against both. Thanks for doing this with mpv, by the way.)
It would also be difficult to get testing for a fix of #763632 [3], as long
as FFmpeg is not in testing.

So there is work involved both ways.

Best regards,
Andreas

1: https://ftp-master.debian.org/new/kodi_14.2+dfsg1-1.html
2: https://bugs.debian.org/763826
3: https://bugs.debian.org/763632


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-release-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: https://lists.debian.org/5540dc88.2010...@googlemail.com

Re: Bug#763148: Prevent migration to jessie

2015-04-29 Thread Emilio Pozuelo Monfort

On 29/04/15 14:29, Bálint Réczey wrote:
 The last word from the Security Team was Moritz's email which gave
 ffmpeg green light after Jessie's release.

No. He said that a decision between libav and ffmpeg would still have to be
made. IOW, we won't ship Stretch with both libav and ffmpeg.

Allowing ffmpeg to migrate now and have half of the rdeps switch from libav to
ffmpeg is only going to make things worse when we have to pull one of the two
with all its rdeps from testing one month before the freeze.

What is your plan to avoid that?

Emilio


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-release-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: https://lists.debian.org/5540ded2.9080...@debian.org

Re: Bug#763148: Prevent migration to jessie

2015-04-29 15:27 GMT+02:00 Alessio Treglia ales...@debian.org:
 On Wed, Apr 29, 2015 at 12:47 PM, Andreas Cadhalpun
 andreas.cadhal...@googlemail.com wrote:
 Therefore I'm planning to discuss a possible transition from
 Libav to FFmpeg with the maintainers of the reverse dependencies,
 before asking the TC for a resolution.

 What if one or more maintainers do not agree with you to make his
 packages break away from libav? What result are you aiming to achieve?
 Splitting multimedia packages up in two groups, each one depending on
 a different implementation of the same interfaces? And on the basis of
 what?
Libav and ffmpeg provide different interfaces and different
implementation in ffmpeg's current packaging solution.
Having packages depending on alternative implementations is business
as usual and upstreams have different preferences. Usually maintainers
are free to choose any other package as dependency whichever they find
the best fit for their package and IMO it is a good practice. This bug
is not about removing Libav this bug is about handling ffmpeg fairly
and letting it migrate to testing at least for a year.


 I feel that we'd better *first* decide on which one between ffmpeg and
 libav we want to keep, and drop the alternative.
I think you have the wrong feeling. Please consider the costs and
benefits instead of feelings. We can have both in even stable. The
cost of Libav + FFmpeg is slightly more than Libav only, while
upstreams and users are screaming for FFmpeg.

Cheers,
Balint


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-release-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: 
https://lists.debian.org/CAK0OdpxcQND7g5XKqXK0v_XwmgWS7czDRt0O2TVax_Y686=f...@mail.gmail.com

Re: Bug#763148: Prevent migration to jessie

2015-04-29 16:17 GMT+02:00 Bálint Réczey bal...@balintreczey.hu:
2015-04-29 16:08 GMT+02:00 Alessandro Ghedini gh...@debian.org:
On Wed, Apr 29, 2015 at 03:28:40PM +0200, Andreas Cadhalpun wrote:
Hi Alessandro,

On 29.04.2015 14:58, Alessandro Ghedini wrote:
On mer, apr 29, 2015 at 02:29:43 +0200, Bálint Réczey wrote:
Since there are concerns on shipping both libav and ffmpeg, we won't
allow
ffmpeg unless it is chosen to be the default and there is a clear
transition
plan, so that we can switch from one to the other. Only then will the
block hint
be removed.
There are no technical reasons for not having both in testing an I see
this the only fair solution. There are no name- nor symbol collision
between the packages. They co-exist perfectly on my systems, too.

There is at least one reason that I can think of. Assuming the decision
to keep
either libav or ffmpeg (not both) stands,

Great to hear that this is only an assumption and no definitive statement!

if ffmpeg is allowed to migrate and
other packages start depending on it,

Packages already depend on FFmpeg, simply because they don't work with
Libav:

Yes, but they won't migrate to testing either.

and if before the stretch release ffmpeg
is deemed not release ready (e.g. if libav is chosen), then more work
will be
required to untangle the dependencies and have ffmpeg removed from
testing.

If a preliminary decision is made in e.g. one years time, maintainers would
have
plenty of time to adapt.

The decision has to be taken *now*, not in one year.
Nope. It is just your opinion. IMO this decision is not needed at all.
Or if this is Security Team's official opinion then please signal that.

Cheers,
Balint

--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-release-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive:
https://lists.debian.org/CAK0OdpxyHbODU_bYHz2A0GZgUiCwrBPvC1w=mohjfb-uvto...@mail.gmail.com

Re: Bug#763148: Prevent migration to jessie

2015-04-29 16:08 GMT+02:00 Alessandro Ghedini gh...@debian.org:
On Wed, Apr 29, 2015 at 03:28:40PM +0200, Andreas Cadhalpun wrote:
Hi Alessandro,

There is at least one reason that I can think of. Assuming the decision to
keep
either libav or ffmpeg (not both) stands,

Great to hear that this is only an assumption and no definitive statement!

if ffmpeg is allowed to migrate and
other packages start depending on it,

Packages already depend on FFmpeg, simply because they don't work with Libav:

Yes, but they won't migrate to testing either.

and if before the stretch release ffmpeg
is deemed not release ready (e.g. if libav is chosen), then more work will
be
required to untangle the dependencies and have ffmpeg removed from testing.

If a preliminary decision is made in e.g. one years time, maintainers would
have
plenty of time to adapt.

The decision has to be taken *now*, not in one year.
Nope. It is just your opinion. IMO this decision is not needed at all.

Last year, just before the freeze, we (the multimedia team) sort of held a
vote
to decide this, but it went in favour of libav. IIRC the reason people voted
in
favour of libav was that we were too close to the freeze to do anything.

Now would be the time to start that discussion again. So, instead of wasting
energies arguing against the migration block, I suggest you be the one to
restart that discussion, given that you are the maintainer of ffmpeg.
Just lift the block and it will end the the argument.
Asking Multimedia Team is wrong way is making the call. It is
_pretending_ to be cooperative.
Why don't you ask KDE maintainers if they want to see GNOME in the archive?

Cheers,
Balint

--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-release-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive:
https://lists.debian.org/cak0odpwdvaidw3k7u1xpw7hjv+cqqntqfyahen6ijdpnt6p...@mail.gmail.com

Re: Bug#763148: Prevent migration to jessie

2015-04-26 Thread Andreas Cadhalpun

On 27.04.2015 00:01, Emilio Pozuelo Monfort wrote:
 On 26/04/15 19:06, Andreas Cadhalpun wrote:
 Dear release team,

 as you undoubtedly know: jessie has been released! \o/

 Thus this bug is now obsolete and I'm closing it.

 Please remove the testing migration block of ffmpeg.
 
 I don't think you understand the problem.
 
 Having both ffmpeg and libav in the same release is the problem.

But having mysql-5.5 and mariadb-10.0 in jessie is apparently no
problem, despite previous claims. What's the difference?

 So at this moment, that block hint is not going to be removed.

When will it be removed, if not now?

Previously Moritz Mühlenhoff wrote [1]:
After the jessie release a decision between libav and ffmpeg will need
to be made. It certainly possible to have them co-exist for a year or
so, but the decision needs to be made before the jessie+1 freeze.

How do you think this should go forward?

Best regards,
Andreas

1: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=763148#134


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-release-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: https://lists.debian.org/553d6718.8010...@googlemail.com

Re: Bug#763148: Prevent migration to jessie

2015-04-26 Thread Emilio Pozuelo Monfort

On 26/04/15 19:06, Andreas Cadhalpun wrote:
 Dear release team,
 
 as you undoubtedly know: jessie has been released! \o/
 
 Thus this bug is now obsolete and I'm closing it.
 
 Please remove the testing migration block of ffmpeg.

I don't think you understand the problem.

Having both ffmpeg and libav in the same release is the problem. So at this
moment, that block hint is not going to be removed.

Emilio


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-release-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: https://lists.debian.org/553d603d.1060...@debian.org

Re: Bug#763148: Prevent migration to jessie

2015-04-26 Thread Andreas Cadhalpun

Dear release team,

as you undoubtedly know: jessie has been released! \o/

Thus this bug is now obsolete and I'm closing it.

Please remove the testing migration block of ffmpeg.

Best regards,
Andreas


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-release-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: https://lists.debian.org/553d1b0d.8000...@googlemail.com

Re: Bug#763148: Prevent migration to jessie

2014-10-18 Thread Balint Reczey

Dear Security and Release Teams,

On Sun, 05 Oct 2014 23:23:07 +0200 Andreas Cadhalpun
andreas.cadhal...@googlemail.com wrote:
 Hi Andreas,
 
 On 05.10.2014 22:54, Andreas Barth wrote:
  * Andreas Cadhalpun (andreas.cadhal...@googlemail.com) [141005 22:36]:
  That's because the last message from a release team member in this bug
  said [1]:
  'However (and please note that I'm not a member of the security team
  and just speak for myself here as always when not otherwise marked) if
 
  As I said, I was just speaking for myself. That I might be at other
  times speaking as a member of the release team doesn't make it an
  opinion of the release team. For the release team opinion on this
  topic seen Cyrils mails.
 
  Also, the re-evaluation happened. It however didn't had the outcome
  you wanted (basically because the web browser needs so many security
  updates which only could be done by backporting all of it that the
  embedded copy doesn't make any difference - this is an exceptional
  thing which does happen but not very often. I can understand it, and
  of course it's the call of the security team how to ensure that Debian
  has security updates. I hadn't know that at the time I though about
  the possibility, otherwise I would have already achived at that moment
  at the conclusion).
 
 
  Conclusion: Though I'm usually an optimistic person how to get things
  achived, I don't see any way left how at this late time it's possible
  to ship with ffmpeg in jessie. I'm sorry but we have to face the
  facts. Independend if we like them or not (and I can fully understand
  that you don't like them, but it's no good pretending facts are
  different than they are). Sorry.
 
 Thanks for explaining.
 
 It's sad that it isn't possible to have FFmpeg in jessie, but hopefully 
 it'll be in jessie+1.
Could you please confirm that bug will be closed and FFmpeg will be let
migrating to testing after Jessie's release no matter if Libav is still
present there?
The current packaging of FFmpeg lets it to co-exist with Libav and the
next release cycle could be used to test it more extensively.

Cheers,
Balint


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-release-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: https://lists.debian.org/5442825b.9070...@balintreczey.hu

Re: Bug#763148: Prevent migration to jessie

2014-10-18 Thread Moritz Muehlenhoff

On Sat, Oct 18, 2014 at 05:08:11PM +0200, Balint Reczey wrote:

 Could you please confirm that bug will be closed and FFmpeg will be let
 migrating to testing after Jessie's release no matter if Libav is still
 present there?

After the jessie release a decision between libav and ffmpeg will need
to be made. It certainly possible to have them co-exist for a year or
so, but the decision needs to be made before the jessie+1 freeze.

Cheers,
Moritz


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-release-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: https://lists.debian.org/20141018161322.ga12...@inutil.org

Re: Bug#763148: Prevent migration to jessie

2014-10-06 Thread David L. Craig

On 14Oct05:2254+0200, Andreas Barth wrote:

 Also, the re-evaluation happened. It however didn't had the outcome
 you wanted (basically because the web browser needs so many security
 updates which only could be done by backporting all of it that the
 embedded copy doesn't make any difference - this is an exceptional
 thing which does happen but not very often. I can understand it, and
 of course it's the call of the security team how to ensure that Debian
 has security updates. I hadn't know that at the time I though about
 the possibility, otherwise I would have already achived at that moment
 at the conclusion).

Where are the minutes of the re-evaluation?
-- 
not cent from sell
May the LORD God bless you exceedingly abundantly!

Dave_Craig__
So the universe is not quite as you thought it was.
 You'd better rearrange your beliefs, then.
 Because you certainly can't rearrange the universe.
__--from_Nightfall_by_Asimov/Silverberg_


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: Bug#763148: Prevent migration to jessie


Hi,

On 05.10.2014 03:26, Michael Gilbert wrote:

On Fri, Oct 3, 2014 at 1:44 PM, Andreas Cadhalpun wrote:

But I don't think that the mere possibility of such problems is a sufficient
reason to disregard Debian policy, which clearly states that embedded code
copies should not be used.
This is especially the case, if it prevents the properly packaged library
and the command line tools from being part of the stable release.


That may be worth considering post-jessie, but an unavoidable issue
right now is that ffmpeg arrived too late to make it into this release
cycle.


Sorry, I don't understand what you're saying here:
The whole discussion we are having currently is about letting FFmpeg 
migrate to jessie!


So this is no 'unavoidable issue'.

But as you seem to be willing to consider this in principle, I think now 
the time has come for the release team to make an official decision:


Is FFmpeg allowed to migrate to testing, so that chromium can use it?

Or is chromium allowed to continue to use it's embedded copy?

Best regards,
Andreas


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-release-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: https://lists.debian.org/54319957.6020...@googlemail.com

Re: Bug#763148: Prevent migration to jessie

2014-10-05 Thread Emilio Pozuelo Monfort


On 05/10/14 21:17, Andreas Cadhalpun wrote:

Hi,

On 05.10.2014 03:26, Michael Gilbert wrote:

On Fri, Oct 3, 2014 at 1:44 PM, Andreas Cadhalpun wrote:

But I don't think that the mere possibility of such problems is a sufficient
reason to disregard Debian policy, which clearly states that embedded code
copies should not be used.
This is especially the case, if it prevents the properly packaged library
and the command line tools from being part of the stable release.


That may be worth considering post-jessie, but an unavoidable issue
right now is that ffmpeg arrived too late to make it into this release
cycle.


Sorry, I don't understand what you're saying here:
The whole discussion we are having currently is about letting FFmpeg migrate to
jessie!

So this is no 'unavoidable issue'.

But as you seem to be willing to consider this in principle, I think now the
time has come for the release team to make an official decision:

Is FFmpeg allowed to migrate to testing, so that chromium can use it?

Or is chromium allowed to continue to use it's embedded copy?


We won't let ffmpeg into Jessie.

Ask again after Jessie is released.

And please stop asking the same question over and over again.

Emilio


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-release-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: https://lists.debian.org/54319b87.9020...@debian.org

Re: Bug#763148: Prevent migration to jessie

2014-10-05 Thread Cyril Brulebois

Andreas Cadhalpun andreas.cadhal...@googlemail.com (2014-10-05):
 The whole discussion we are having currently is about letting FFmpeg
 migrate to jessie!
 
 So this is no 'unavoidable issue'.
 
 But as you seem to be willing to consider this in principle, I think
 now the time has come for the release team to make an official
 decision:
 
 Is FFmpeg allowed to migrate to testing, so that chromium can use it?
 
 Or is chromium allowed to continue to use it's embedded copy?

I'm not sure why one would think the decision still needs to be made.

Mraw,
KiBi.


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: Bug#763148: Prevent migration to jessie


Hi,

On 05.10.2014 21:27, Cyril Brulebois wrote:

Andreas Cadhalpun andreas.cadhal...@googlemail.com (2014-10-05):

The whole discussion we are having currently is about letting FFmpeg
migrate to jessie!

So this is no 'unavoidable issue'.

But as you seem to be willing to consider this in principle, I think
now the time has come for the release team to make an official
decision:

Is FFmpeg allowed to migrate to testing, so that chromium can use it?

Or is chromium allowed to continue to use it's embedded copy?


I'm not sure why one would think the decision still needs to be made.


That's because the last message from a release team member in this bug 
said [1]:

'However (and please note that I'm not a member of the security team
and just speak for myself here as always when not otherwise marked) if
it would be possible to replace the internal code copy in chromium
by a reference to ffmpeg (but it's not possible with libav), that will
probably lead to a re-evalutation. (That doesn't necessarily mean
sucess guranteed, but it looks to me as it will not make things
worse.)'

It is possible to replace the internal code copy in chromium
by a reference to ffmpeg [2], so I thought this would lead to a 
re-evaluation.


Best regards,
Andreas


1: https://bugs.debian.org/763148#27
2: https://bugs.debian.org/763632


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-release-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: https://lists.debian.org/5431abb3.9080...@googlemail.com

Re: Bug#763148: Prevent migration to jessie

2014-10-05 Thread Cyril Brulebois

Andreas Cadhalpun andreas.cadhal...@googlemail.com (2014-10-05):
 On 05.10.2014 21:27, Cyril Brulebois wrote:
  I'm not sure why one would think the decision still needs to be made.
 
 That's because the last message from a release team member in this
 bug said [1].

 1: https://bugs.debian.org/763148#27

What I wrote applies to both Andreas.

Mraw,
KiBi.


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: Bug#763148: Prevent migration to jessie


Hi,

On 05.10.2014 22:38, Cyril Brulebois wrote:

Andreas Cadhalpun andreas.cadhal...@googlemail.com (2014-10-05):

On 05.10.2014 21:27, Cyril Brulebois wrote:

I'm not sure why one would think the decision still needs to be made.


That's because the last message from a release team member in this
bug said [1].



1: https://bugs.debian.org/763148#27


What I wrote applies to both Andreas.


When and how was this decision made, if apparently not even all release 
team members were aware of that?


Best regards,
Andreas


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-release-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: https://lists.debian.org/5431ae91.3010...@googlemail.com

Re: Bug#763148: Prevent migration to jessie

2014-10-05 Thread Andreas Barth

* Andreas Cadhalpun (andreas.cadhal...@googlemail.com) [141005 22:36]:
 That's because the last message from a release team member in this bug  
 said [1]:
 'However (and please note that I'm not a member of the security team
 and just speak for myself here as always when not otherwise marked) if

As I said, I was just speaking for myself. That I might be at other
times speaking as a member of the release team doesn't make it an
opinion of the release team. For the release team opinion on this
topic seen Cyrils mails.

Also, the re-evaluation happened. It however didn't had the outcome
you wanted (basically because the web browser needs so many security
updates which only could be done by backporting all of it that the
embedded copy doesn't make any difference - this is an exceptional
thing which does happen but not very often. I can understand it, and
of course it's the call of the security team how to ensure that Debian
has security updates. I hadn't know that at the time I though about
the possibility, otherwise I would have already achived at that moment
at the conclusion).


Conclusion: Though I'm usually an optimistic person how to get things
achived, I don't see any way left how at this late time it's possible
to ship with ffmpeg in jessie. I'm sorry but we have to face the
facts. Independend if we like them or not (and I can fully understand
that you don't like them, but it's no good pretending facts are
different than they are). Sorry.


Andi


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-release-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: https://lists.debian.org/20141005205445.gh3...@mails.so.argh.org

Re: Re: Bug#763148: Prevent migration to jessie

2014-10-05 Thread Raphael Geissert

On Sunday 05 October 2014 22:48:17 Andreas Cadhalpun wrote:
 When and how was this decision made, if apparently not even all release
 team members were aware of that?

I refrained myself from making this comment on the previous debian-devel 
thread, but now I consider it necessary to be said: given your apparent lack 
of understanding of the situation and way of communicating it only makes me 
wonder on the ability to work with you as the maintainer of such a security-
sensitive package that ffmpeg is. I truly hope you understand the 
implications of such an impediment.

Regards,
-- 
Raphael Geissert - Debian Developer
www.debian.org - get.debian.net


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-release-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: https://lists.debian.org/21102124.Bn3hmkj4GS@eee

Re: Bug#763148: Prevent migration to jessie


Hi Raphael,

On 05.10.2014 23:01, Raphael Geissert wrote:

I refrained myself from making this comment on the previous debian-devel
thread, but now I consider it necessary to be said: given your apparent lack
of understanding of the situation and way of communicating it only makes me
wonder on the ability to work with you as the maintainer of such a security-
sensitive package that ffmpeg is. I truly hope you understand the
implications of such an impediment.


I always tried to understand the arguments of others and explain my 
point of view extensively.


I'm sorry if this wasn't how it looked to you.

Best regards,
Andreas


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-release-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: https://lists.debian.org/5431b68e.2090...@googlemail.com

Re: Bug#763148: Prevent migration to jessie