Bug#538881: ITP: libweed0 -- Library for inclusion of plugins into LiVES
On Tue, July 28, 2009 12:14, Harry Rickards wrote: > -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- > Hash: SHA1 > > Christian Marillat wrote: >> Harry Rickards writes: >> >>> Christian Marillat wrote: Harry Rickards writes: >> >> [...] >> The diff in this link doesn't provides packages for the shared library when my diff does. Then which diff do you think is the best for you ? >>> As far as I can tell your diff provides libweed as part of the lives >>> package. You also seem to have a binary only libweed package, which >>> would mean that lives wouldn't be accepted into the main repo. >> >> Are you sure ? My diff provides 4 packages. >> >> , >> | $ dh_listpackages >> | lives >> | lives-data >> | libweed0 >> | libwee-dev >> ` >> >> Christian > Oh yeah. Sorry that was me being dumb. > It looks as though lives is in quite capable hands, so I'll let you do > the packaging work. If you'd like any of the work I've done, it's > available at http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/l/lives/ and > http://l33tmyst.com/weed.tgz > Christian, can we put your packages in the main debain repositories ? Gabriel. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-wnpp-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Bug#538881: ITP: libweed0 -- Library for inclusion of plugins into LiVES
On Tue, July 28, 2009 12:14, Harry Rickards wrote: > -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- > Hash: SHA1 > > Christian Marillat wrote: >> Harry Rickards writes: >> >>> Christian Marillat wrote: Harry Rickards writes: >> >> [...] >> The diff in this link doesn't provides packages for the shared library when my diff does. Then which diff do you think is the best for you ? >>> As far as I can tell your diff provides libweed as part of the lives >>> package. You also seem to have a binary only libweed package, which >>> would mean that lives wouldn't be accepted into the main repo. >> >> Are you sure ? My diff provides 4 packages. >> >> , >> | $ dh_listpackages >> | lives >> | lives-data >> | libweed0 >> | libwee-dev >> ` >> >> Christian > Oh yeah. Sorry that was me being dumb. > It looks as though lives is in quite capable hands, so I'll let you do > the packaging work. If you'd like any of the work I've done, it's > available at http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/l/lives/ and > http://l33tmyst.com/weed.tgz > > - -- > Thanks > Harry Rickards > > GPG Key Info: > pub 1024R/58449F6F 2009-06-12 > uid Harry Rickards (OpenPGP Card) > > sub 1024R/D775CCEE 2009-06-12 > sub 1024R/9394048C 2009-06-12 > -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- > Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux) > Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org > > iJwEAQECAAYFAkpuz4YACgkQ+9DWHFhEn2+qBwP/WifgrMms9YAlitgnDNxWa12m > 4tOwIbEScOCcam/eqflHWpSp6rvfGGnhonXn1f2oTAo6PAdkWMsYd1R5kjBxyaG2 > 5h/sKD8tQvW0gFxAkiXZmkvv/t/yCq2kxiuaKkX5rPHjJsSDRugztP+D9XY8TxQ1 > hu+/poLvTgDKXHf+MsY= > =Dg9I > -END PGP SIGNATURE- > Look, I don't care who makes the packages, I want them in the official debian repostiories, not sitting on debian-multimedia.org. Seems like now we are back to square one. Thanks a lot guys. Gabriel. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-wnpp-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Bug#247337: [Fwd: Re: [Fwd: lives_0.9.8.10-1_powerpc.changes REJECTED]]
Robert, it appears that your email is no longer functioning. Please update me with your new email address. Gabriel. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-wnpp-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Bug#247337: [Fwd: Re: [Fwd: lives_0.9.8.10-1_powerpc.changes REJECTED]]
OK. How long does approval normally take ? Also, you should have checked the file list with me first. Libraries like: ./usr/lib/lives/plugins/playback/video/lives2lives_stream.a ./usr/lib/lives/plugins/playback/video/SDL.a ./usr/lib/lives/plugins/effects/realtime/weed/*.a are redundant, because these are all dynamically linked at runtime, so only the .so and .la versions are used. You may want to bear this in mind for the next release. Regards, Gabriel. On Sat, February 7, 2009 00:40, Robert Millan wrote: > On Sat, Feb 07, 2009 at 12:00:38AM +0100, salsa...@xs4all.nl wrote: >> >> LiVES 0.9.9.6 has been released today. This version should be suitable >> for >> inclusion in debian. All requested changes have been made. >> >> See http://lives.sourceforge.net/index.php?do=downloads for full >> details. >> >> >> Please keep me updated with any progress. > > Hi Gabriel, > > Please excuse me for not having notified you, we uploaded a snapshot and > is currently in ftp-master queue pending approval: > > http://ftp-master.debian.org/new/lives_0.9.9.5+20090126+debian-1.html > > -- > Robert Millan > > The DRM opt-in fallacy: "Your data belongs to us. We will decide when > (and > how) you may access your data; but nobody's threatening your freedom: we > still allow you to remove your data and not access it at all." > -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-wnpp-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Bug#247337: [Fwd: Re: [Fwd: lives_0.9.8.10-1_powerpc.changes REJECTED]]
On Wed, January 7, 2009 13:19, Gürkan Sengün wrote: > hello gabriel > >> OK, all of the fixes asked for have now been checked in to CVS. >> >> Can I now, *finally*, expect a debian package of LiVES !?!?!?! > > there are such packages, just not officially in debian. could you make > a tarball release of all this stuff of CVS? > > regards, > guerkan senguen > >> Regards, >> Gabriel "salsaman", >> http://lives.sourceforge.net >> > > LiVES 0.9.9.6 has been released today. This version should be suitable for inclusion in debian. All requested changes have been made. See http://lives.sourceforge.net/index.php?do=downloads for full details. Please keep me updated with any progress. Regards, Gabriel http://lives.sourceforge.net -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-wnpp-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Bug#247337: [Fwd: Re: [Fwd: lives_0.9.8.10-1_powerpc.changes REJECTED]]
On Wed, December 17, 2008 22:50, Robert Millan wrote: > On Tue, Apr 29, 2008 at 04:01:59PM +0200, Gürkan Sengün wrote: >> On Tue, April 29, 2008 09:29, Gürkan Sengün wrote: >> >Dear Salsaman, >> > >> >Could you relicense all of your software parts of lives into >> >GNU GPL v3, or 2, or 2.1, whatever you like best? >> > >> >That'll make inclusion of lives into Debian (and Ubuntu) a lot >> >easier. >> > >> >Thank you, >> >Gürkan >> >> Hi, >> all of the LiVES software is licensed under the GPL v3 or later. The >> only >> exception is weed.h, weed.c, weed-utils.c which will become a library >> under the LGPL v3 or later. If you find any source files which are >> incorrectly licensed, please let me know and I will correct this. >> >> [...] >> >> I will take a look at the debian/copyright file and update it as >> necessary. > > Hi, > > Any progress on this? I'd really like to see an OGG-capable editor in > Debian, > and Lives looks like a good option. > > If you need more details, this was the response from FTP team (as posted > in > the bug log): > > > Additionally your debian/copyright file is incomplete and misses > (C)holders/license data. You have to include all such differences. > Like all of libOSC/*, some of the icons. > > And next, it includes a mixture of GPL/LGPL v2/v2.1 and v3. > Now you need to check if all v2/v2.1 ones are "or any later". If not it > is undistributable. > > >> RFX.spec is a documentation file which documents a standard. I am happy >> to >> change the license for this to whatever you recommend (what does debian >> recommend for standards ?). > > GPL or LGPL would be fine. > > -- > Robert Millan > > The DRM opt-in fallacy: "Your data belongs to us. We will decide when > (and > how) you may access your data; but nobody's threatening your freedom: we > still allow you to remove your data and not access it at all." > OK, all of the fixes asked for have now been checked in to CVS. Can I now, *finally*, expect a debian package of LiVES !?!?!?! Regards, Gabriel "salsaman", http://lives.sourceforge.net -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-wnpp-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Bug#247337: [Fwd: Re: [Fwd: lives_0.9.8.10-1_powerpc.changes REJECTED]]
On Fri, December 19, 2008 19:28, Robert Millan wrote: > On Thu, Dec 18, 2008 at 01:14:49AM +0100, salsa...@xs4all.nl wrote: >> > >> > Additionally your debian/copyright file is incomplete and misses >> > (C)holders/license data. You have to include all such differences. >> > Like all of libOSC/*, some of the icons. >> > >> >> There was some code in colourspace.c which was by another author, it was >> basically minimal code (setting some conversion values in tables). All >> of >> this has now been rewritten from scratch. As far as I know the copyright >> file is up to date. If anybody finds something missing, let me know and >> I >> can add it in. > > Great! Sounds like that would be solved now. I hope so. Somebody mentioned the icons also last time - I can't believe anybody would complain, they are 16 x 16 pixel (8 in total) bitmaps used for play/rewind/stop/pause etc buttons. But I have added the thanks in to the debian/copyright file now. > >> > And next, it includes a mixture of GPL/LGPL v2/v2.1 and v3. >> > Now you need to check if all v2/v2.1 ones are "or any later". If not >> it >> > is undistributable. >> > >> > >> >> All of the LiVES code is licensed under the GPL v3 or LGPL v3. In fact, >> I >> made the change on the day that the GPL v3 was released, and am proud of >> that fact. > > Hey, you beat me (win32-loader) by just one day! ;-) > I was following the shinanegans with MS and Novell at the time, and was keen to take a stand against their supposed patent dealings. >> During the transition there may have been one or two files >> which were mistakenly left as GPL v2 or higher. I believe all such files >> have now been updated. If you find any files marked GPL2 or higher, >> please >> let me know and I will update them. > > GPL v2 or higher files can be combined with GPL v3 code, so this is not a > problem as far as Debian is concerned. It's only a problem if they're v2 > only without "or later". Would that be the case for any of your files? > Like I said, all files are GPL/LGPL 3 or higher. The libOSC code which I distribute with LiVES is not written by me, and is under a BSD license. This is also mentioned in debian/copyright. >> >> RFX.spec is a documentation file which documents a standard. I am >> happy >> >> to >> >> change the license for this to whatever you recommend (what does >> debian >> >> recommend for standards ?). >> > >> > GPL or LGPL would be fine. >> >> OK, I still need to make this one change, I will check it into CVS now. > > Sorry, I was not particularly bright that day. GPL or LGPL is indeed fine > for > Debian, in that it makes the document free (modifiable, etc), but I didn't > understand what you meant about a license "for standards". > > When people write a standard, it's logical they don't want modified > versions > to be also considered the same standard unless they previously sanction > them. > > But sometimes standard drafters (like the RFC) take this too far and > forbid > moficication completely, making the document non-free. > > If you wanted to allow modification only in case they give the standard > another > name, you could draft a license specifically for this. That's what the > Apache > folks did, but it's really a bad idea. It breaks GPL compatibility and it > abuses copyright to do something that really belongs to trademarks. For > version 2 of their license, it seems they realized this, and simply said: > > > This License does not grant permission to use the [...] trademarks > > > GPLv3 has a provision for something similar: > > > Notwithstanding any other provision of this License, for material you > add to a covered work, you may (if authorized by the copyright holders of > that material) supplement the terms of this License with terms: > > [...] > c) Prohibiting misrepresentation of the origin of that material, or > requiring that modified versions of such material be marked in > reasonable ways as different from the original version; or > > [...] > > e) Declining to grant rights under trademark law for use of some > trade names, trademarks, or service marks; or > > > which you might find useful. Hope that helps! > > -- > Robert Millan > > The DRM opt-in fallacy: "Your data belongs to us. We will decide when > (and > how) you may access your data; but nobody's threatening your freedom: we > still allow you to remove your data and not access it at all." > I am not too bothered about this really. I have now changed the license of the document to GNU FDL, and the standard itself is now GPL. (Incidentally, that brings me on to another point, off topic, but I have always wondered why the FSF don't introduce the GPSL (GNU Public Standards License). I intend to ask RMS about it the next time I see him.) Anyway, back to the main point, I hope we can get moving on this soon and get LiVES into the official debian repositories. As was mentioned initially, indeed LiVES offers great ogg/theora suppor
Bug#247337: [Fwd: Re: [Fwd: lives_0.9.8.10-1_powerpc.changes REJECTED]]
On Wed, December 17, 2008 22:50, Robert Millan wrote: > On Tue, Apr 29, 2008 at 04:01:59PM +0200, Gürkan Sengün wrote: >> On Tue, April 29, 2008 09:29, Gürkan Sengün wrote: >> >Dear Salsaman, >> > >> >Could you relicense all of your software parts of lives into >> >GNU GPL v3, or 2, or 2.1, whatever you like best? >> > >> >That'll make inclusion of lives into Debian (and Ubuntu) a lot >> >easier. >> > >> >Thank you, >> >Gürkan >> >> Hi, >> all of the LiVES software is licensed under the GPL v3 or later. The >> only >> exception is weed.h, weed.c, weed-utils.c which will become a library >> under the LGPL v3 or later. If you find any source files which are >> incorrectly licensed, please let me know and I will correct this. >> >> [...] >> >> I will take a look at the debian/copyright file and update it as >> necessary. > > Hi, > > Any progress on this? I'd really like to see an OGG-capable editor in > Debian, > and Lives looks like a good option. > > If you need more details, this was the response from FTP team (as posted > in > the bug log): > I would like to know also. > > Additionally your debian/copyright file is incomplete and misses > (C)holders/license data. You have to include all such differences. > Like all of libOSC/*, some of the icons. > There was some code in colourspace.c which was by another author, it was basically minimal code (setting some conversion values in tables). All of this has now been rewritten from scratch. As far as I know the copyright file is up to date. If anybody finds something missing, let me know and I can add it in. > And next, it includes a mixture of GPL/LGPL v2/v2.1 and v3. > Now you need to check if all v2/v2.1 ones are "or any later". If not it > is undistributable. > > All of the LiVES code is licensed under the GPL v3 or LGPL v3. In fact, I made the change on the day that the GPL v3 was released, and am proud of that fact. During the transition there may have been one or two files which were mistakenly left as GPL v2 or higher. I believe all such files have now been updated. If you find any files marked GPL2 or higher, please let me know and I will update them. >> RFX.spec is a documentation file which documents a standard. I am happy >> to >> change the license for this to whatever you recommend (what does debian >> recommend for standards ?). > > GPL or LGPL would be fine. > OK, I still need to make this one change, I will check it into CVS now. Salsaman. http://lives.sourceforge.net > -- > Robert Millan > > The DRM opt-in fallacy: "Your data belongs to us. We will decide when > (and > how) you may access your data; but nobody's threatening your freedom: we > still allow you to remove your data and not access it at all." > -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-wnpp-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Bug#247337: [Fwd: lives_0.9.8.10-1_powerpc.changes REJECTED]
On Tue, April 29, 2008 11:55, Gürkan Sengün wrote: >> I still don't understand the necessity to upload Lives in Debian. >> >> Without mjpegtools you can't encode in mpeg2. Same for transcode or >> mencoder who doesn't exist in Debian even if you add a note saying >> "Lives doesn't work, you need to add this package from this site" > > Anyone can add it from wherever he wants, or take a Debian package > and rebuild it according their needs. This is a lot easier when you can > just say apt-get source PACKAGE, without having to figure where else it > is (if it's not in an official debian repository). > > Besides, someone can just use lives effects, then reencode the movie > into whatever format he wants at the end of all the editing. > > > the >> first user will certainly don't understand why Lives doesn't work >> because this use will certainly never read the README.Debian. > > There's no README.Debian. > >> Christian > > Yours, > Gürkan > LiVES will run just fine without mjpegtools, transcode and mencoder. In fact, 3 years ago I made a version which had no non-free dependencies. For example, the program is able to encode to ogg theora/vorbis without any of the above dependencies. If you ship the program without mjpegtools for example, and the user selects the mjpegtools encoder, they will get an error message informing them that they need to install mjpegtools to use that particular encoder. Hence there is no need for a separate README file. Regards, Gabriel. http://lives.sf.net -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bug#247337: [Fwd: lives_0.9.8.10-1_powerpc.changes REJECTED]
On Tue, April 29, 2008 11:57, Christian Marillat wrote: > Gürkan Sengün <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > >>> I still don't understand the necessity to upload Lives in Debian. >>> >>> Without mjpegtools you can't encode in mpeg2. Same for transcode or >>> mencoder who doesn't exist in Debian even if you add a note saying >>> "Lives doesn't work, you need to add this package from this site" >> >> Anyone can add it from wherever he wants, or take a Debian package >> and rebuild it according their needs. This is a lot easier when you can >> just say apt-get source PACKAGE, without having to figure where else it >> is (if it's not in an official debian repository). > > Debian isn't Gentoo. > >> Besides, someone can just use lives effects, then reencode the movie >> into whatever format he wants at the end of all the editing. >> >>> the >>> first user will certainly don't understand why Lives doesn't work >>> because this use will certainly never read the README.Debian. >> >> There's no README.Debian. > > Even better. How user should guess what is missing then ? > > Christian > > There is no need to guess, LiVES will inform you if/when you select an encoder plugin which has missing requirements. Also, if the user tries to open (import) a file which has no support in mplayer, they will see an error message on the terminal informing them that mplayer is possibly missing a library. Regards, Gabriel. http://lives.sf.net -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bug#247337: LiVES
There are LiVES .debs now at debian-multimedia.org. All that is required is for somebody to copy these packages into the main debian repositories. Salsaman. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bug#247337: LiVES
LiVES is now at version 0.9.8, and still there is no full-time debian maintainer for this package ! How come nobody has picked this up yet ? Salsaman. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bug#247337: LiVES 0.9.1
LiVES 0.9.1 has been released. This package offers full support for various open source codecs, e.g. ogg theora, dirac, and mng. I'm getting a bit tired of waiting for debian to get its act together. We could have a nice .deb of LiVES with ogg theora as the default codec. Salsaman.
Bug#274986: RFP: lives -- Video editing system
Free Ekanayaka wrote: Package: wnpp Severity: wishlist * Package name: lives Version : 0.9.1-pre6 Upstream Author : G. Finch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> * URL or Web page : http://www.xs4all.nl/~salsaman/lives/ * License : GPL Description : Linux video editing system LiVESis designed to be simple to use, yet powerful. It is small in size, yet it has many advanced features. It is part editor, part VJ tool. It is fully extendible through open standard RFX plugin scripts. LiVES lets you start editing and making video right away, without having to worry about formats, frame sizes, or framerates. LiVES will let you start creating your own tools, utilities and effects via the built in RFX builder. LiVES is aimed at the digital video artist who wants to create their own content, the video editor who wants to create professional looking video, and the VJ who wants to captivate with spectacular images. Cheers, Free Ekanayaka Great, I mentioned this to Andrea. You might want to wait for the next version though, which will feature support for encoding to the open source ogg theora and dirac codecs. Theora could be set as the default for agnula/debian ;-) Cheers, Gabriel.
Bug#247337: LiVES
If you need any help with this, please let me know. Salsaman, main developer, LiVES. http://lives.sourceforge.net
