Ron --
Can you please let me know the procedure for how to verify the orig tarball
for the 349 version in Debian Sid?
Up to and including the 348 version of Mumble in Wheezy that Patrick Matthäi
had been packaging, the tarballs clearly came from the upstream snapshots
located at [1], so those
I think the rate at which we are gaining new reliable information has
reached diminishing returns. I think it is time to dispose of this
issue.
I think the right answer for a TC decision looks something like this:
Context:
1. The questions surrounding the codecs in mumble, especially celt,
Ian Jackson writes (Bug#682010: [mumble] Communication failures due to CELT
codec library removal):
13. The mumble maintainers, with appropriate help from other
interested parties, should prepare an upload of mumble for wheezy
with
On rereading, prepare an upload of mumble
Ian Jackson ijack...@chiark.greenend.org.uk writes:
We therefore recommend that:
13. The mumble maintainers, with appropriate help from other
interested parties, should prepare an upload of mumble for wheezy
with
- embedded celt 0.7.1 enabled
- no other version
Ian Jackson ijack...@chiark.greenend.org.uk writes:
It's perhaps a rather obvious conclusion that I think everyone agrees on
so hasn't been discussed extensively. My reasons are:
Other mumble clients (the servers aren't relevant, as discussed) support
celt 0.7.1 as a baseline so in practice
Russ Allbery writes (Re: Bug#682010: [mumble] Communication failures due to
CELT codec library removal):
Oh, okay, I see. I wanted not to tie the hands of the maintainers if
there was some reason to support some other version of celt, but all the
above also seems reasonable, and at this point
Chris Knadle writes (Re: Bug#682010: [mumble] Communication failures due to
CELT codec library removal):
a) CELT 0.11.0 is newer and might have fewer security issues, so it's
better for it to get used rather than 0.7.1
AIUI a client which supports celt version X will be vulnerable
Chris Knadle writes (Re: Bug#682010: [mumble] Communication failures due to
CELT codec library removal):
The test was done with a patched 348-1.1 mumble-server and a patched
348-1.1 mumble client with bundled celt 0.7.1 only. (i.e. the patches I
had
already sent.) The other OSes were
On Monday, July 23, 2012 13:26:57, Don Armstrong wrote:
On Mon, 23 Jul 2012, Chris Knadle wrote:
On Monday, July 23, 2012 10:34:28, Ian Jackson wrote:
Of these 2. would seem to be the best option.
I agree.
[...]
I believe in order to actually evaluate any of these solutions,
Hi,
On Wednesday 25 July 2012 03:50:23 Chris Knadle wrote:
The way you've described this, /if/ the trick with Speex does work, and the
Debian version of Mumble ships without CELT, it would mean that if any
Debian user shows up on a public server then all users would switch to
using Speex. If
On Wednesday, July 25, 2012 03:40:52, Nicos Gollan wrote:
Hi,
On Wednesday 25 July 2012 03:50:23 Chris Knadle wrote:
The way you've described this, /if/ the trick with Speex does work, and
the Debian version of Mumble ships without CELT, it would mean that if
any Debian user shows up on
On Wed, Jul 25, 2012 at 09:40:52AM +0200, Nicos Gollan wrote:
If the trick with speex works and is actually deemed necessary, then we're
talking about a package providing the absolute minimum of interoperability
without any ambition to providing quality. And yes, for it to work, it would
On Wednesday, July 25, 2012 09:17:10, Philipp Kern wrote:
On Wed, Jul 25, 2012 at 09:40:52AM +0200, Nicos Gollan wrote:
If the trick with speex works and is actually deemed necessary, then
we're talking about a package providing the absolute minimum of
interoperability without any ambition
On Saturday 21 July 2012 03:35:56 Ron wrote:
Sorry to keep this going with one more message, but since it seems apropos
to the question of building an accurate table of where we might expect
compatibility, and the earlier question of what people use on Ubuntu and
other derivatives:
[cut IRC
Ron writes (Re: Bug#682010: [mumble] Communication failures due to CELT codec
library removal):
My primary concern is with the fact we would be shipping very complicated
code, that only about 3 people in the world really understand, and which
has no committed ongoing maintainer from among them
On Tue, Jul 24, 2012 at 01:17:10PM +0100, Ian Jackson wrote:
Ron writes (Re: Bug#682010: [mumble] Communication failures due to CELT
codec library removal):
My primary concern is with the fact we would be shipping very complicated
code, that only about 3 people in the world really
Ron writes (Bug#682010: [mumble] Communication failures due to CELT codec
library removal):
I understand your line of thinking there, and for 99% of the code in the
world, I'd be in complete agreement. I'm not someone who is afraid of
code, or of getting my hands dirty in it, but we're
On Tue, Jul 24, 2012 at 06:25:04PM +0100, Ian Jackson wrote:
Ron writes (Bug#682010: [mumble] Communication failures due to CELT codec
library removal):
I understand your line of thinking there, and for 99% of the code in the
world, I'd be in complete agreement. I'm not someone who
On Tuesday, July 24, 2012 15:37:51, Ron wrote:
On Tue, Jul 24, 2012 at 06:25:04PM +0100, Ian Jackson wrote:
[…]
My current understanding is that the code given as celt 0.7.0 in the
current mumble source *is* in fact 0.7.1, though I need to diff that
against the upstream 0.7.1 to be absolutely
On Tuesday, July 24, 2012 04:59:29, Nicos Gollan wrote:
[…]
On Monday, July 23, 2012 15:25:17, Ron wrote:
Speex is our most certain baseline, because all clients support it,
and no server support is required.
Support for speex was a hack around disabilities of CELT at low bandwidths,
and
This is a bit of a dead issue now, but I wanted to come back to it:
Steve Langasek writes (Bug#682010: [mumble] Communication failures due to CELT
codec library removal):
On Fri, Jul 20, 2012 at 02:48:07PM -0700, Don Armstrong wrote:
The objection is that the issue has been raised before
On Sun, Jul 22, 2012 at 06:31:27PM -0400, Chris Knadle wrote:
1) Fix up 348 from Wheezy so it compiles and uses the CELT
codec library [very undesirable]
2) Same as 1) but with embedded CELT (would need testing)
3) drop mumble from Wheezy
If we go with 3), would the server
Philipp Kern writes (Re: Bug#682010: [mumble] Communication failures due to
CELT codec library removal):
On Sun, Jul 22, 2012 at 06:31:27PM -0400, Chris Knadle wrote:
1) Fix up 348 from Wheezy so it compiles and uses the CELT
codec library [very undesirable]
2) Same as 1
Ron writes (Bug#682010: [mumble] Communication failures due to CELT codec
library removal):
That point is currently still true. Every existing client has the ability
to *decode* speex if speex packets arrive.
The only thing removed from recent clients was the ability to encode them
On Monday, July 23, 2012 10:34:28, Ian Jackson wrote:
Philipp Kern writes (Re: Bug#682010: [mumble] Communication failures due to
CELT codec library removal):
On Sun, Jul 22, 2012 at 06:31:27PM -0400, Chris Knadle wrote:
1) Fix up 348 from Wheezy so it compiles and uses the CELT
Chris Knadle writes (Re: Bug#682010: [mumble] Communication failures due to
CELT codec library removal):
On Monday, July 23, 2012 10:34:28, Ian Jackson wrote:
Philipp Kern writes (Re: Bug#682010: [mumble] Communication failures due
to
CELT codec library removal):
On Sun, Jul 22, 2012
On Mon, Jul 23, 2012 at 03:38:44PM +0100, Ian Jackson wrote:
Ron writes (Bug#682010: [mumble] Communication failures due to CELT codec
library removal):
That point is currently still true. Every existing client has the ability
to *decode* speex if speex packets arrive.
The only thing
On Monday, July 23, 2012 13:09:05, Ian Jackson wrote:
Chris Knadle writes (Re: Bug#682010: [mumble] Communication failures due to
CELT codec library removal):
On Monday, July 23, 2012 10:34:28, Ian Jackson wrote:
Philipp Kern writes (Re: Bug#682010: [mumble] Communication failures
due
On Monday, July 23, 2012 04:52:29, Nicos Gollan wrote:
Hi,
On Monday 23 July 2012 00:31:27 Chris Knadle wrote:
This means that the Opus-only client ruins the audio connection for
everybody else that's connected, at least in this case.
That happens because the maintainer patch
On Monday, July 23, 2012 13:26:57, Don Armstrong wrote:
On Mon, 23 Jul 2012, Chris Knadle wrote:
On Monday, July 23, 2012 10:34:28, Ian Jackson wrote:
Of these 2. would seem to be the best option.
I agree.
[...]
I believe in order to actually evaluate any of these solutions,
On Mon, Jul 23, 2012 at 06:09:05PM +0100, Ian Jackson wrote:
Chris Knadle writes (Re: Bug#682010: [mumble] Communication failures due to
CELT codec library removal):
On Monday, July 23, 2012 10:34:28, Ian Jackson wrote:
Philipp Kern writes (Re: Bug#682010: [mumble] Communication failures
On Mon, Jul 23, 2012 at 02:38:19PM -0400, Chris Knadle wrote:
On Monday, July 23, 2012 13:16:55, Ron wrote:
On Mon, Jul 23, 2012 at 03:38:44PM +0100, Ian Jackson wrote:
[…]
Maybe that is true for the gamers, but when I asked I didn't get
any confirmation that this was what the problem they
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 23.07.2012 19:16, Ron wrote:
Celt on the other hand, was designed for low-latency interactive
music.
Fwiw, I've seen numerous people asking in #mumble how to stream music
over Mumble in a way that it sounds reasonable, so it might not be
*just*
On Monday, July 23, 2012 15:25:17, Ron wrote:
On Mon, Jul 23, 2012 at 06:09:05PM +0100, Ian Jackson wrote:
Chris Knadle writes (Re: Bug#682010: [mumble] Communication failures due
to CELT codec library removal):
On Monday, July 23, 2012 10:34:28, Ian Jackson wrote:
Philipp Kern writes
On Monday, July 23, 2012 15:43:11, Ron wrote:
On Mon, Jul 23, 2012 at 02:38:19PM -0400, Chris Knadle wrote:
On Monday, July 23, 2012 13:16:55, Ron wrote:
On Mon, Jul 23, 2012 at 03:38:44PM +0100, Ian Jackson wrote:
[…]
Maybe that is true for the gamers, but when I asked I didn't get
On Sat, Jul 21, 2012 at 03:46:34PM -0400, Chris Knadle wrote:
The issue I have now is that The Plan that Ron and Thorvald have come up with
Will Not Work, depending what the _goal_ is. If the goal is to be able to
interoperate with the existing *server* base [which was exactly why this came
On Sunday, July 22, 2012 04:35:00, Ron wrote:
On Sat, Jul 21, 2012 at 03:46:34PM -0400, Chris Knadle wrote:
...
[Special thanks goes to Nicos for watching our backs here.]
Just to be clear here, because at some point Ian described Nicos as being
a mumble developer, and you have now declared
On Fri, 20 Jul 2012, Steve Langasek wrote:
On Fri, Jul 20, 2012 at 02:48:07PM -0700, Don Armstrong wrote:
I've updated the summary with the suggested changes (at the end).
From the BTS, it doesn't look to me like this summary has taken?
I've cleared out the summary in the BTS because it
On Saturday, July 21, 2012 02:42:43, Steve Langasek wrote:
On Fri, Jul 20, 2012 at 02:48:07PM -0700, Don Armstrong wrote:
I've updated the summary with the suggested changes (at the end).
From the BTS, it doesn't look to me like this summary has taken?
On Sat, 21 Jul 2012, Ron wrote:
Processing commands for cont...@bugs.debian.org:
summary 682010 0
Summary recorded from message bug 682010 message 215
forwarded 682010
http://git.donarmstrong.com/?p=debian-ctte.git;a=blob;f=682010_celt_and_mumble/682010_celt_and_mumble.org
Bug #682010 [tech-ctte] [mumble] Communication
Thanks Don,
I've dropped Thorvald from the CC list, because he's on VAC for a week,
and wasn't looking forward to coming back to a mailbox full of stress.
If others would be good enough to do the same, I'm sure he can more
quickly come up to speed with whatever summary we've got when he's back.
I've updated the summary with the suggested changes (at the end).
On Sat, 21 Jul 2012, Ron wrote:
I think that's roughly right. If there's anything more people need
clarified or answered, just ask.
[...]
And I'm still not quite clear what his objection was, because the
response I got was:
On Friday, July 20, 2012 17:48:07, Don Armstrong wrote:
I've updated the summary with the suggested changes (at the end).
Please note that the table I had previously published to the original bug is
informative for when server loopback works when there is only a *single*
client connected. It
On Fri, Jul 20, 2012 at 02:48:07PM -0700, Don Armstrong wrote:
I've updated the summary with the suggested changes (at the end).
On Sat, 21 Jul 2012, Ron wrote:
I think that's roughly right. If there's anything more people need
clarified or answered, just ask.
[...]
And I'm still
On Fri, Jul 20, 2012 at 06:12:43PM -0400, Chris Knadle wrote:
On Friday, July 20, 2012 17:48:07, Don Armstrong wrote:
I've updated the summary with the suggested changes (at the end).
Please note that the table I had previously published to the original bug is
informative for when server
On Friday, July 20, 2012 19:24:17, Don Armstrong wrote:
On Sat, 21 Jul 2012, Ron wrote:
One very last thing then, before I hopefully stop bothering you for
a while (:
** Use speex instead
+ Clients cannot currently report speex version during codec
selection process
On Thursday, July 19, 2012 05:56:26, Neil McGovern wrote:
Hi,
I'll try and work out a view on the rest of this soon-ish (Ian: do you
have a target response date?), but on one very specific point:
On Wed, Jul 18, 2012 at 11:45:13PM -0400, Chris Knadle wrote:
I'm wondering if multi-arch
Neil McGovern writes (Re: Bug#682010: [mumble] Communication failures due to
CELT codec library removal):
I'll try and work out a view on the rest of this soon-ish (Ian: do you
have a target response date?), but on one very specific point:
I don't have a target response date, no. Our
Chris Knadle writes (Re: Bug#682010: [mumble] Communication failures due to
CELT codec library removal):
If there was time before the freeze I would have wanted to handle
this differently -- the Mumble source code in Debian contains a
directory celt-0.7.0 as well as celt-0.11.0, i.e
Package: tech-ctte
Severity: normal
Greetings to the technical committee.
This refers to Bug #675971 (which is severity grave, and currently closed)
against the Mumble VoIP package, which is also affected by Bug #674650
concerning the removal of the CELT library. This evening we also just
Chris Knadle writes (Bug#682010: [mumble] Communication failures due to CELT
codec library removal):
Package: tech-ctte
Severity: normal
...
This refers to Bug #675971 (which is severity grave, and currently closed)
against the Mumble VoIP package, which is also affected by Bug #674650
On Wednesday, July 18, 2012 19:15:01, Ian Jackson wrote:
Chris Knadle writes (Bug#682010: [mumble] Communication failures due to
CELT codec library removal):
Package: tech-ctte
Severity: normal
...
This refers to Bug #675971 (which is severity grave, and currently
closed) against
52 matches
Mail list logo
