* Andreas Cadhalpun andreas.cadhal...@googlemail.com [27-03-2014 14:35 EET]:
Hi Norbert,
On 27.03.2014 14:49, Norbert Preining wrote:
On Thu, 27 Mar 2014, Andreas Cadhalpun wrote:
I updated my packaging to FFmpeg 2.2 and was finally able to push it
to the collab-maint repository [1].
I
Nalepsze Latarki ,Lornetki wejdz i zobacz :
www.elektroshop-polska.pl
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Nalepsze Latarki ,Lornetki wejdz i zobacz :
www.elektroshop-polska.pl
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Hi Everyone,
Just wanted to let you know, I'm still working on my ppa (I'm still
trying to fund the test bench). As well, there is a discussion on Ubuntu
forums;
http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=2149564p=13100237#post13100237 .
From My Research Desk :)
On 08/09/2014 08:27 AM, Andreas
user debian-le...@lists.debian.org
usertags 729203 one-copyright-review
thanks
Le Fri, Aug 08, 2014 at 01:53:15AM +0200, Andreas Cadhalpun a écrit :
Now, could anyone review the debian/copyright file of ffmpeg?
The sources are available in this repository:
Hi Charles,
On 09.08.2014 11:45, Charles Plessy wrote:
I searched for license information missing from your debian/copyright and could
find only one case, libavutil/x86/x86inc.asm, which is under the ISC license.
The debian/copyright file of your package looks comprehensive to me.
Many
Quoting Andreas Cadhalpun (2014-08-09 13:34:04)
On 09.08.2014 11:45, Charles Plessy wrote:
I searched for license information missing from your debian/copyright
and could find only one case, libavutil/x86/x86inc.asm, which is
under the ISC license.
The debian/copyright file of your package
Hi Jonas,
On 09.08.2014 13:51, Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
Quoting Andreas Cadhalpun (2014-08-09 13:34:04)
On 09.08.2014 11:45, Charles Plessy wrote:
I searched for license information missing from your debian/copyright
and could find only one case, libavutil/x86/x86inc.asm, which is
under the
user debian-le...@lists.debian.org
usertags 729203 copyright-review-requested
thanks
Hi Charles,
On 06.08.2014 13:55, Charles Plessy wrote:
A few years ago, I made a proposal for peer-reviewing copyright files in the
NEW queue.
https://wiki.debian.org/CopyrightReview
The goal is not to
I feel the debate is going a bit on a tangent in this thread, so I'd like
to take an opportunity to recenter it a tad.
We have many issues that were risen in this thread,
but
I believe that the cut has to be made by the people that we have in special
roles for; -security for security
On 28/07/14, 01:20am, Andreas Cadhalpun wrote:
Hi all,
some of you may have noticed a weird ffmpeg package in the NEW queue[1].
Let me explain:
In 2011 Libav[2] was forked from FFmpeg[3]. It was a time of great
uncertainty, the fork happened with much drama that didn't help making a
Hi Dimitri,
On 29.07.2014 03:12, Dimitri John Ledkov wrote:
I don't have an opinion about ffmpeg vs libav, apart from how hard the
soname transitions are, especially in ubuntu where we somehow ended up
with ex-multimedia packages around that either never were in debian,
or have been long
On Tue, Jul 29, 2014 at 6:10 PM, Andreas Cadhalpun
andreas.cadhal...@googlemail.com wrote:
I don't have an opinion about ffmpeg vs libav, apart from how hard the
soname transitions are, especially in ubuntu where we somehow ended up
with ex-multimedia packages around that either never were
Hi,
I here by echo Andreas and thanks for his hard work.
It has been too long that people has to build their own package.
Please get this into Jessie as it does no harm to existing packages and only
benefits
the situation.
We have been waiting way too long for this to happen.
Although I don’t
On Mon, Jul 28, 2014 at 03:39:29 +0200, Andreas Cadhalpun wrote:
Hi Reinhard,
On 28.07.2014 02:05, Reinhard Tartler wrote:
On Sun, Jul 27, 2014 at 7:20 PM, Andreas Cadhalpun
andreas.cadhal...@googlemail.com wrote:
* Does it make sense for me to switch my package?
The rule of thumb
Ciao,
On Mon, Jul 28, 2014 at 9:44 AM, Julien Cristau jcris...@debian.org wrote:
The release team is likely to let the people involved in multimedia foo
fight it out among themselves and pick a winner. We're not going to
ship both and hand that mess over to the security team.
Personally I
On Jul 28, Alessio Treglia ales...@debian.org wrote:
Personally I don't feel like dropping libav in favor of ffmpeg now at
this stage. It's too late for Jessie.
Except that, for a lot of the depending packages, there would be an
immediate benefit in the number of bugs fixed.
Personally I feel
Hi Julien,
On 28.07.2014 10:44, Julien Cristau wrote:
It remains to be seen, what the release team prefers: frustrated users and
developers or both forks in jessie.
The release team is likely to let the people involved in multimedia foo
fight it out among themselves and pick a winner.
I am
On Mon, Jul 28, 2014 at 12:12 PM, IOhannes m zmölnig (Debian/GNU)
umlae...@debian.org wrote:
Except that, for a lot of the depending packages, there would be an
immediate benefit in the number of bugs fixed.
at least in theory.
Plus I would definitely appreciate to see some bug stats
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
(resending, to keep debian-devel and the bug-report in the loop)
personally i would welcome if both libav and ffmpeg could co-exist
within Debian¹.
as i see it, libav and ffmpeg have diverged, and as such i would like
to have the choice which one
On Mon, 28 Jul 2014, Norbert Preining wrote:
On Sun, 27 Jul 2014, Reinhard Tartler wrote:
In [1], Moritz from the security team clearly stated that he is more
than uncomfortable with having more than one copy of libavcodec in
debian/testing. In consequence this means that any package that
On 28.07.2014 13:24, Alessio Treglia wrote:
On Mon, Jul 28, 2014 at 12:12 PM, IOhannes m zmölnig (Debian/GNU)
umlae...@debian.org wrote:
Except that, for a lot of the depending packages, there would be an
immediate benefit in the number of bugs fixed.
at least in theory.
Plus I would
:
If you wish to see a supported ffmpeg stack in both Debian and Ubuntu,
please become a developer and start maintaining it in Debian.
Best regards,
Andreas
1: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=729203#528
2: https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/libav/+bug/1263278
On Mon, Jul 28, 2014 at 04:05:46PM +0200, Andreas Cadhalpun wrote:
On 28.07.2014 13:52, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote:
On Mon, 28 Jul 2014, Norbert Preining wrote:
On Sun, 27 Jul 2014, Reinhard Tartler wrote:
In [1], Moritz from the security team clearly stated that he is more
than
On 28 July 2014 15:05, Andreas Cadhalpun
andreas.cadhal...@googlemail.com wrote:
On 28.07.2014 13:52, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote:
On Mon, 28 Jul 2014, Norbert Preining wrote:
On Sun, 27 Jul 2014, Reinhard Tartler wrote:
In [1], Moritz from the security team clearly stated that he is
Hi all,
some of you may have noticed a weird ffmpeg package in the NEW queue[1].
Let me explain:
In 2011 Libav[2] was forked from FFmpeg[3]. It was a time of great
uncertainty, the fork happened with much drama that didn't help making a
technical cut, and at that peculiar time Debian switched
On Sun, Jul 27, 2014 at 7:20 PM, Andreas Cadhalpun
andreas.cadhal...@googlemail.com wrote:
* Does it make sense for me to switch my package?
The rule of thumb is, if your upstream uses FFmpeg for development
you probably want to switch to using it, too.
In [1], Moritz from the security
On Jul 28, Reinhard Tartler siret...@gmail.com wrote:
Moreover, I am curious why I haven't seen you working on libavcodec
bugs in Debian before, and why do you believe you can do a better job
with the ffmpeg package currently on NEW?
Why should he work on libavcodec when he (along with many
Hi,
On Sun, 27 Jul 2014, Reinhard Tartler wrote:
In [1], Moritz from the security team clearly stated that he is more
than uncomfortable with having more than one copy of libavcodec in
debian/testing. In consequence this means that any package that builds
against the ffmpeg packages currently
, if
there is no easy workaround.
Best regards,
Andreas
a: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=729203#568
b: https://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2014/02/msg00714.html
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble
联系人
Having discovered this bug report and subsequently absorbing
it, I cloned the repository, built the debs, and installed
them into my primary Sid box. Now I need to track the repo.
I didn't see why this package has still not been uploaded.
Perhaps I need to reread the report.
Nonetheless, all
Hi David,
On 03.07.2014 15:46, David L. Craig wrote:
Having discovered this bug report and subsequently absorbing
it, I cloned the repository, built the debs, and installed
them into my primary Sid box. Now I need to track the repo.
Thanks for testing the repository!
I hope the packages work
/* */
Energia dla firm Sp. z o.o. z siedzibą w Warszawie, ul.
Domaniewska 37, 02-672 Warszawa, wpisana do rejestru przedsiębiorców
Hi,
On 04.05.2014 22:16, Cyborg Ethly Alpha {My Research Desk} wrote:
On one system, I have FFmpeg 2.x is installed side by side with Libav ;
The package listing from Synaptic shows;
libavcodec-extra-52
This is from version 0.5...
libavcodec-extra-53
...and this from version 0.8.
From My Research Desk :)
On 05/06/2014 12:28 PM, Andreas Cadhalpun wrote:
Hi,
On 04.05.2014 22:16, Cyborg Ethly Alpha {My Research Desk} wrote:
On one system, I have FFmpeg 2.x is installed side by side with Libav ;
The package listing from Synaptic shows;
libavcodec-extra-52
This is from
Hi Niv,
I'm wondering, whether I should rename the libraries to *-ffmpegNNN.
Do you still think I should?
Have you found any other things that could be improved in the FFmpeg
packaging?
Best regards,
Andreas
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a
Hi Andreas,
I haven't gotten the time to look more into this, and am now in a 25hrs bus
with limited internet access.
My rationale is this:
- I don't want to ofend the libav maintainers nor want them to go on a +300
api bump.
- I don't want anything breaking in debian because users pick our lib
Hi Niv,
On 04.05.2014 13:03, Niv Sardi wrote:
I haven't gotten the time to look more into this, and am now in a 25hrs
bus with limited internet access.
I see.
My rationale is this:
- I don't want to ofend the libav maintainers nor want them to go on a
+300 api bump.
I don't want to offend
Hi Everyone,
On one system, I have FFmpeg 2.x is installed side by side with Libav ;
The package listing from Synaptic shows;
libavcodec-extra-52
libavcodec-extra-53
libavcodec55-ffmpeg
all installed.
and I found;
ffmpeg-set-alternatives
A helper package to create and remove the alternatives
Hi,
I've begun the work on FFmpeg 2.x in Lauchpad;
Project page; https://launchpad.net/ffmpeg-exp-nightly
PPA; https://launchpad.net/~cyborg-alpha-nh4/+archive/ffmpeg-exp-nightly
I tried to set-up in https://alioth.debian.org , but received the
following error on verify;
Exiting with error ---
Hi,
On 28.04.2014 03:17, Cyborg Ethly Alpha {My Research Desk} wrote:
I've been watching the discussion. I'll be test benching the differences
with FFmpeg and Libav (on the same system) through-out the year.
That's interesting. How do you intend to benchmark this?
Do you want to test the
From My Research Desk :)
On 04/28/2014 05:26 PM, Andreas Cadhalpun wrote:
Hi,
On 28.04.2014 03:17, Cyborg Ethly Alpha {My Research Desk} wrote:
I've been watching the discussion. I'll be test benching the differences
with FFmpeg and Libav (on the same system) through-out the year.
That's
On Apr 28, 2014 5:22 PM, Cyborg Ethly Alpha {My Research Desk}
cyborg.alpha.ch3...@gmail.com wrote:
On Lauchpad;
2: https://launchpad.net/ffmpeg-exp-nightly
The page says:
Licences: Creative Commons - No Rights Reserved, Other/Open Source
(A new license is being created FSL
I'm compiling direct from FFmpeg. This what's on my current system.
(FFmpeg 2.2 LibAV side-by-side) . FFmpeg (with libav dependencies) was
compiled from their nightly tar ball. I'm going to experiment with that
first, before moving on to working on the stable version. (Simply since
I started with
Hi andreas,
I took a little bit of time to review your packages today,
you overhall did a really good job, and your efforts to bring FFMPEG
into debian are very apreciated
that said, here are a couple of things I think we need to fix before
upload, but mainly:
* the
Hi Niv,
thanks for reviewing.
On 27.04.2014 21:24, Niv Sardi wrote:
I took a little bit of time to review your packages today,
you overhall did a really good job, and your efforts to bring FFMPEG
into debian are very apreciated
that said, here are a couple of things I think we need to fix
I've been watching the discussion. I'll be test benching the differences
with FFmpeg and Libav (on the same system) through-out the year. I will
be setting up the experimental (nightly) FFmpeg ppa in launch pad some
time tonight (it's 9pm EST here) or tomorrow. Then I'll add an
experimental
Hi,
I have rebuilt the 111 reverse build-dependencies of src:libav currently
in sid against FFmpeg, by replacing the Libav '-dev' dependencies with
the appropriate FFmpeg '-ffmpeg-dev' dependencies.
67 of these packages build right away, 13 have a fixed version in
experimental and 19 can be
I'm happy to sponsor the upload, but am a bit confused about what Package
to look at.
I'm currently out of Office for a few days, but should be able to look into
it next weekend.
Hi Niv,
On 26.04.2014 21:02, Niv Sardi wrote:
I'm happy to sponsor the upload, but am a bit confused about what
Package to look at.
Thanks for the offer to sponsor this.
The packaging is in the following repository:
http://anonscm.debian.org/gitweb/?p=collab-maint/ffmpeg.git;a=summary
You
Hi,
On 23.04.2014 23:08, Cyborg Ethly Alpha {My Research Desk} wrote:
I'm in the middle of clearing up some network issues (on my network).
It seems you're not the only one with network issues, as Thorsten Glaser
seems to be temporarily unavailable:
Delivery to the following recipient has
Title: INIS
Wiadomość wysłano na zlecenie: Eden Springs Sp. z o.o 32-065 Krzeszowice Os. Czatkowice 254 wpisana do rejestru przedsiębiorców
I'm in the middle of clearing up some network issues (on my network).
I've complied ffmpeg on the Debian fork Ubuntu, and have an account on
launchpad. I'm aiming to bring FFmpeg there.
From My Research Desk :)
On 04/23/2014 03:58 AM, Andreas Cadhalpun wrote:
On 21.04.2014 12:42, Thorsten
Hi Norbert,
On 27.03.2014 14:49, Norbert Preining wrote:
I tried to build in a clean cowbuilder on amd64, but it dies right
at the beginning after configure:
...
Creating config.mak, config.h, and doc/config.texi...
make[1]: Leaving directory `/tmp/buildd/ffmpeg-2.2'
debian/rules
Hi Jonathan,
I updated my packaging to FFmpeg 2.2 and was finally able to push it to
the collab-maint repository [1].
Please review and test this. When we are satisfied with it, you could
upload it to experimental.
Best regards,
Andreas
1:
Hi Andreas,
On Thu, 27 Mar 2014, Andreas Cadhalpun wrote:
I updated my packaging to FFmpeg 2.2 and was finally able to push it
to the collab-maint repository [1].
I tried to build in a clean cowbuilder on amd64, but it dies right
at the beginning after configure:
...
Creating config.mak,
Hi Norbert,
On 27.03.2014 14:49, Norbert Preining wrote:
On Thu, 27 Mar 2014, Andreas Cadhalpun wrote:
I updated my packaging to FFmpeg 2.2 and was finally able to push it
to the collab-maint repository [1].
I tried to build in a clean cowbuilder on amd64, but it dies right
at the beginning
Hi,
On 22.03.2014 21:16, Cyborg Ethly Alpha {My Research Desk} wrote:
Thank you very much. I was thinking, that it might be a good idea to
have a second (back) repository, just in case. It would relieve pressure
on the primary repository and provide better up-time. While I currently
don't have
Hi Daniel
On 21.03.2014 22:06, Cyborg Ethly Alpha {My Research Desk} wrote:
I'm interested in becoming a co-maintainer.
You are welcome to do so.
There is already a collab-maint git repository on alioth [1], but
unfortunately some permissions are wrong, so I can't push my packaging
to it. I
Hi Andreas
Thank you very much. I was thinking, that it might be a good idea to
have a second (back) repository, just in case. It would relieve pressure
on the primary repository and provide better up-time. While I currently
don't have a git server (and I would be willing to set one up). I do
https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=729203#588
I intend to be in the packaging team and Alexander Strasser as well.
Other co-maintainers are still welcome.
I'm interested in becoming a co-maintainer.
Daniel (aka Cyborg Alpha)
--
From My Research Desk :)
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE
Hi Andreas,
On Sun, Mar 16, 2014 at 02:36:35PM +0100, Andreas Cadhalpun wrote:
unfortunately you haven't forwarded my and Alexander's request to
join collab-maint to n...@debian.org. Thus we still don't have access
to the repository you created.
No, so far I haven't, sorry - I haven't had
Hi Jonathan,
unfortunately you haven't forwarded my and Alexander's request to join
collab-maint to n...@debian.org. Thus we still don't have access to the
repository you created.
Are you still interested in packaging FFmpeg for Debian?
Best regards,
Andreas
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to
We need a real FFMPEG , the new one produces
*** THIS PROGRAM IS DEPRECATED ***
This program is only provided for compatibility and will be removed in a
future release. Please use avconv instead.
after issuing an ffmpeg command. This cause ffmpeg to go into permanent
disk-sleep, requiring a
Hi !
Some people have reported on Ubuntu that Firefox (which now makes use of
GStreamer 0.10.x to decode H264 video, at least until Firefox 30 which
should switch to GStreamer 1.x) can't read H264 video using
gstreamer1.0-libav whereas they can using gstreamer0.10-ffmpeg [1]
Maybe this could
Right now 1000s of people build ffmpeg daily from git,
just to have a working copy.
Please drop libav + add back ffmpeg.
Thanks!
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
On Wed, Feb 26, 2014 at 10:17:03PM +0100, Andreas Cadhalpun wrote:
I would be fine with collab-maint and Alexander as well. If you
create a repository, we could ask to be added and I could put my
current packaging (imported via git-dsc-import) in there.
OK, I've created an empty repository at
On Wed, Feb 26, 2014 at 04:49:09PM +0100, Moritz Mühlenhoff wrote:
On Wed, Feb 26, 2014 at 02:30:47AM +0100, Michael Niedermayer wrote:
Yes, it's the latter: I didn't badmouth ffmpeg in any way: it was said
that libav
fixed less Google fuzzer samples than libav; for which I added my
hi,
i recently got upset when i got error messages like this:
/Repos/slowmoVideo/src/slowmoVideo/lib/ffmpegEncode_sV.c:110: undefined
reference to `avformat_alloc_output_context2'
while compiling great opensource stuff which didn't have a debian package.
it's not all about the ffmpeg binary,
Hi Clint,
On 26.02.2014 02:39, Clint Adams wrote:
On Tue, Feb 25, 2014 at 11:30:25PM +0100, Andreas Cadhalpun wrote:
Ideally the security team should now evaluate which of the two are
better from a security point of view and based on this decide, which
one they would prefer to see in jessie.
(in the sense that FFmpeg uses them) patches.
If you want Micheal Niedermayer to send these patches to libav upstream,
I think you would have to convince them to remove some bans from their
mailing lists. Good luck with that.
Best regards,
Andreas
0: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug
On 2014-02-26 04:56:02, Andreas Cadhalpun wrote:
Hi Clint,
On 26.02.2014 02:39, Clint Adams wrote:
On Tue, Feb 25, 2014 at 11:30:25PM +0100, Andreas Cadhalpun wrote:
Ideally the security team should now evaluate which of the two are
better from a security point of view and based on this
On Wed, Feb 26, 2014 at 02:30:47AM +0100, Michael Niedermayer wrote:
Yes, it's the latter: I didn't badmouth ffmpeg in any way: it was said that
libav
fixed less Google fuzzer samples than libav; for which I added my
observation that when
I looked at several CVE assignments for ffmpeg
On Tue, Feb 25, 2014 at 11:30:25PM +0100, Andreas Cadhalpun wrote:
But then the security team represented by Moritz stated that they
would not support both FFmpeg and libav, so they are the only ones
affected negatively by FFmpeg in stable. Thus I think it doesn't
make much sense to discuss
Hi Antoine,
On 26.02.2014 14:15, Antoine Beaupré wrote:
On 2014-02-26 04:56:02, Andreas Cadhalpun wrote:
At the moment I think Antoine is still reviewing my packaging before
sponsoring an upload.
This was a misunderstanding - I thought more work would be done on the
package first. :)
I
On Wed, Feb 26, 2014 at 01:39:23AM +, Clint Adams wrote:
Ideally someone should upload ffmpeg to unstable instead of
endlessly discussing it. I don't see anyone preventing this
yet.
Seconded. I felt that Moritz's last message (when it was the last
message) was fine - let's get it into
Hi Andreas
On Tue, Feb 25, 2014 at 05:43:25PM +0100, Andreas Cadhalpun wrote:
I intend to package and maintain FFmpeg for Debian. Co-maintainers
are welcome.
I am interested in co maintaining and can sponsor uploaders, as long
as the package is maintained in git and we aim to get an ffmpeg
Hi Jonathan,
thanks for your interest!
On 26.02.2014 21:17, Jonathan Dowland wrote:
On Wed, Feb 26, 2014 at 01:39:23AM +, Clint Adams wrote:
Ideally someone should upload ffmpeg to unstable instead of
endlessly discussing it. I don't see anyone preventing this
yet.
Seconded. I felt
Control: owner -1 !
Control: retitle -1 ITP: ffmpeg -- complete, cross-platform solution to
record, convert and stream audio and video
Hi all,
I intend to package and maintain FFmpeg for Debian. Co-maintainers are
welcome.
The security team is invited to discuss why FFmpeg is security-wise
Stripping CC's.
On 2014-02-25 11:43:25, Andreas Cadhalpun wrote:
Antoine, are you willing to sponsor this, maybe becoming a co-maintainer?
I am willing to sponsor an upload, but I don't have much time,
especially not to become a co-maintainer.
It also seems that I may not be perfectly
On Sun, Feb 23, 2014 at 11:36:36PM +0100, Andreas Cadhalpun wrote:
Hi Moritz,
On 23.02.2014 22:56, Moritz Mühlenhoff wrote:
I don't have the time nor the interest to discuss this at length, so
EOD from my side.
since you started this discussion by effectively preventing FFmpeg
from being
Hi Moritz,
On 25.02.2014 17:57, Moritz Mühlenhoff wrote:
On Sun, Feb 23, 2014 at 11:36:36PM +0100, Andreas Cadhalpun wrote:
Hi Moritz,
On 23.02.2014 22:56, Moritz Mühlenhoff wrote:
I don't have the time nor the interest to discuss this at length, so
EOD from my side.
since you started this
On 25.02.2014 17:52, Antoine Beaupré wrote:
On 2014-02-25 11:43:25, Andreas Cadhalpun wrote:
Antoine, are you willing to sponsor this, maybe becoming a co-maintainer?
I am willing to sponsor an upload, but I don't have much time,
especially not to become a co-maintainer.
Thanks for
On Tue, Feb 25, 2014 at 06:23:20PM +0100, Andreas Cadhalpun wrote:
No, it means I don't have the time, nor nerve to discuss this. We're
after all busy to keep Debian secure and sick of maintainers who only
focus on their pet package and neglegt the overall maintainability
of the Debian
On 25.02.2014 22:18, Yves-Alexis Perez wrote:
On Tue, Feb 25, 2014 at 06:23:20PM +0100, Andreas Cadhalpun wrote:
No, it means I don't have the time, nor nerve to discuss this. We're
after all busy to keep Debian secure and sick of maintainers who only
focus on their pet package and neglegt the
On Tue, Feb 25, 2014 at 11:30:25PM +0100, Andreas Cadhalpun wrote:
On 25.02.2014 22:18, Yves-Alexis Perez wrote:
On Tue, Feb 25, 2014 at 06:23:20PM +0100, Andreas Cadhalpun wrote:
No, it means I don't have the time, nor nerve to discuss this. We're
after all busy to keep Debian secure and sick
On Tue, Feb 25, 2014 at 11:33:33PM +0100, Moritz Muehlenhoff wrote:
On Tue, Feb 25, 2014 at 11:30:25PM +0100, Andreas Cadhalpun wrote:
On 25.02.2014 22:18, Yves-Alexis Perez wrote:
On Tue, Feb 25, 2014 at 06:23:20PM +0100, Andreas Cadhalpun wrote:
No, it means I don't have the time, nor
On Tue, Feb 25, 2014 at 05:57:02PM +0100, Moritz Mühlenhoff wrote:
On Sun, Feb 23, 2014 at 11:36:36PM +0100, Andreas Cadhalpun wrote:
Hi Moritz,
On 23.02.2014 22:56, Moritz Mühlenhoff wrote:
I don't have the time nor the interest to discuss this at length, so
EOD from my side.
On Tue, Feb 25, 2014 at 11:30:25PM +0100, Andreas Cadhalpun wrote:
Ideally the security team should now evaluate which of the two are
better from a security point of view and based on this decide, which
one they would prefer to see in jessie.
But if they don't, someone else will have to make
On Tue, Feb 25, 2014 at 8:39 PM, Michael Niedermayer wrote:
The security team made it abundantly clear that we will only support
either solution. If you go ahead with the ITP we'll file an RC bug
against ffmpeg to prevent it's transition to testing. You can then
sort out how/whether ffmpeg
--The best place to start is testing and (more preferably) patches for
--the present libav issues. There are 18 of them:
-- https://security-tracker.debian.org/tracker/source-package/libav
https://security-tracker.debian.org/tracker/source-package/libav
--
--Best wishes,
--Mike
Not really we
On Sat, Feb 22, 2014 at 08:18:20PM +0100, Andreas Cadhalpun wrote:
Adrian, do you agree that this is sane?
If the security team is not willing to support both, they can ask the TC
to decide which one to use, but this does not prevent an upload of FFmpeg.
I don't see why security would
On Sun, Feb 23, 2014 at 10:53:18AM +0100, Moritz Mühlenhoff wrote:
On Sat, Feb 22, 2014 at 08:18:20PM +0100, Andreas Cadhalpun wrote:
...
But should they decide that it will not be possible to support both
packages for security updates, your argumentation would clearly
favor ffmpeg over
[Adding the CCs again, I hope you don't mind.]
Hi Timothy,
thanks for your remarks and sorry for not responding sooner, I got
distracted...
On 22.02.2014 20:39, Timothy Gu wrote:
On Sat, Feb 22, 2014 at 11:18 AM, Andreas Cadhalpun
andreas.cadhal...@googlemail.com wrote:
Upstream thinks
On Sun, Feb 23, 2014 at 12:38:17PM +0100, Andreas Cadhalpun wrote:
...
On 23.02.2014 11:48, Adrian Bunk wrote:
...
E.g. except for the idea of removing this pretty popular package
in favour of a dead fork, I don't recall any solution proposed
for getting MPlayer compile again in unstable.
On Sun, Feb 23, 2014 at 12:48:34PM +0200, Adrian Bunk wrote:
On Sun, Feb 23, 2014 at 10:53:18AM +0100, Moritz Mühlenhoff wrote:
On Sat, Feb 22, 2014 at 08:18:20PM +0100, Andreas Cadhalpun wrote:
...
But should they decide that it will not be possible to support both
packages for security
Hi Moritz,
On 23.02.2014 22:56, Moritz Mühlenhoff wrote:
I don't have the time nor the interest to discuss this at length, so
EOD from my side.
since you started this discussion by effectively preventing FFmpeg from
being uploaded, I take it that you ending this discussion now means
FFmpeg
Hi all,
I have looked at the packaging provided by Antoine and it seems - no
offense intended - a little bit messy.
Thus I have started from scratch and packaged FFmpeg 2.1.3 [1] (see
attached debian.tar.xz).
I have taken care to avoid conflicts with libav as far as possible, but
the
1 - 100 of 187 matches
Mail list logo
