"Andrew Donnellan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> It would be great if upstream would actually care about legal issues,
> licenses and patents in particular.
Upstream does care for legal issues, and patents in particular. Check
the mplayer development mailing list archive for the last months.
> T
On Fri, Sep 22, 2006 at 01:12:02PM +0200, Reinhard Tartler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> "Andrew Donnellan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > It would be great if upstream would actually care about legal issues,
> > licenses and patents in particular.
>
> Upstream does care for legal issues, and
Mike Hommey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Fri, Sep 22, 2006 at 01:12:02PM +0200, Reinhard Tartler <[EMAIL
> PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> > This is pretty much the only thing stopping Debian from distributing
>> > it - it may actually be illegal [...]
>>
>> The problematic parts regarding patents are
[César Martínez Izquierdo]
> Another reason is... lots of Debian users download mplayer from
> Marillat or other sources (maybe Marillat may provide some stats)...
popcon.debian.org can provide stats. Of 16473 machines submitting
info, 3555 (22%) have the mplayer package installed. There are 84
On 9/22/06, Reinhard Tartler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
"Andrew Donnellan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> It would be great if upstream would actually care about legal issues,
> licenses and patents in particular.
Upstream does care for legal issues, and patents in particular. Check
the mplayer
"César Martínez Izquierdo" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> First of all, I don't have time to send bug reports for all the bugs I
> find (although I send most of them, when I have to choose I send to
> packages which I usually use).
> Specially, when I want to see a film, I really want to see the fi
FWIW, I found your mail unnecessarily offensive.
"Andrew Donnellan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On 9/22/06, Reinhard Tartler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Upstream does care for legal issues, and patents in particular. Check
>> the mplayer development mailing list archive for the last months.
On 9/23/06, Reinhard Tartler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Considering your contributions to this thread, I see 3 possibilites:
- you are interested in not having a mplayer package in debian, then
please clearly say so. I don't have that impression
- you are not interested in having a mplayer
On 10786 March 1977, Bartosz Fenski aka fEnIo wrote:
> Many people contributed much time to make mplayer ready to enter our
> archives and as far as I can see they are simply ignored.
> Please tell me what's wrong with *current* package and what can we do to
> make it better and stop saying me it'
Andrew Donnellan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I'd prefer number 3, until there is an alternative that can play
> absolutely everything Mplayer can it would be great to have it in
> Debian. However given the fact that 99.999% of Debian people are not
> subscribed to the MPlayer dev list (and there
On 9/24/06, Russ Allbery <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
In other words, the fastest way to get legal issues with mplayer clarified
would be for someone who cared specifically about getting mplayer into
Debian putting together a list of the specific questions that need to be
resolved before Debian can
Petter Reinholdtsen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> [César Martínez Izquierdo]
> > Another reason is... lots of Debian users download mplayer from
> > Marillat or other sources (maybe Marillat may provide some stats)...
>
> popcon.debian.org can provide stats. Of 16473 machines submitting
> info,
Am Montag 25 September 2006 14:27 schrieb Johan Kullstam:
> You can have mplayer installed without it necessarily showing up for
> popcon.
Or you don't have it installed and don't participate in popcon.
popcon does not show representative values but everybody knows that.
HS
pgpYUyzPOfd9b.pgp
De
Hendrik Sattler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Am Montag 25 September 2006 14:27 schrieb Johan Kullstam:
> > You can have mplayer installed without it necessarily showing up for
> > popcon.
>
> Or you don't have it installed and don't participate in popcon.
> popcon does not show representative va
[Yavor Doganov]
> I was wondering, what's so important about mplayer? With totem and
> vlc (and I anticipate there's something similar for KDE) you have
> everything you need.
I believe kaffeine is the totem equivalent for KDE. And I agree, the
tools in Debian are quite good, and I am not sure i
On Fri, Sep 22, 2006 at 11:12:10AM +0200, Petter Reinholdtsen wrote:
> > I was wondering, what's so important about mplayer? With totem and
> > vlc (and I anticipate there's something similar for KDE) you have
> > everything you need.
>
> I believe kaffeine is the totem equivalent for KDE. And I
On 9/22/06, Bartosz Fenski aka fEnIo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Yes, I know there won't be w32codecs package in Debian, but even mplayer
would be great addition.
It would be great if upstream would actually care about legal issues,
licenses and patents in particular. This is pretty much the onl
Le vendredi 22 septembre 2006 à 11:19 +0200, Bartosz Fenski aka fEnIo a
écrit :
> Mplayer comes with his friend mencoder. I doubt that koffeine, totem, xine,
> vlc have something to offer in that regard.
VLC does, and we also have ffmpeg for command-line encoding.
GStreamer in Debian currently do
On 9/22/06, Josselin Mouette <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Le vendredi 22 septembre 2006 à 11:19 +0200, Bartosz Fenski aka fEnIo a
écrit :
> Mplayer comes with his friend mencoder. I doubt that koffeine, totem, xine,
> vlc have something to offer in that regard.
VLC does, and we also have ffmpeg fo
On Friday 22 September 2006 13:29, César Martínez Izquierdo wrote:
> I could never see a whole film using Totem or VLC (from Debian).
That is interesting assertion. I have very good experience with vlc here.
Did you report your issue to the BTS ?
> I do, with mplayer (from Marillat).
In fact, I'
On Fri, Sep 22, 2006 at 11:12:10AM +0200, Petter Reinholdtsen wrote:
> And I agree, the tools in Debian are quite good, and I am not sure if
> mplayer have much extra to offer these days.
I've heard these claims (“player X should be more than good enough, what do
you need mplayer for these days?”
On Fri, 22 Sep 2006, Steinar H. Gunderson wrote:
I've heard these claims (ÿÿplayer X should be more than good enough, what do
you need mplayer for these days?ÿÿ) for at least the last five years -- it's a
difficult claim to refute, since people have rather different viewing habits,
different pla
Le vendredi 22 septembre 2006 à 12:29 +0200, César Martínez Izquierdo a
écrit :
> I could never see a whole film using Totem or VLC (from Debian).
I don't remember seeing your bug report, could you point me to the bug
number please?
--
.''`. Josselin Mouette/\./\
: :' :
On Fri, 22 Sep 2006 13:03:44 +0200, Steinar H. Gunderson wrote:
> I've heard these claims (“player X should be more than good enough,
> what do you need mplayer for these days?”) for at least the last five
> years
Not, "This cannot be played on record^Hmedia player X" ?
Tortoise
--
Chris L
On 9/22/06, Josselin Mouette <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Le vendredi 22 septembre 2006 à 12:29 +0200, César Martínez Izquierdo a
écrit :
> I could never see a whole film using Totem or VLC (from Debian).
I don't remember seeing your bug report, could you point me to the bug
number please?
First
[Bartosz Fenski]
> Mplayer comes with his friend mencoder. I doubt that koffeine,
> totem, xine, vlc have something to offer in that regard.
Yes, I believe you are right there. I suspect ffmpeg is the closest
"replacement" for mencoder, thought the feature set is different. :)
> And if I can't p
On Fri, Sep 22, 2006, Bartosz Fenski aka fEnIo wrote:
> Mplayer comes with his friend mencoder. I doubt that koffeine, totem, xine,
> vlc have something to offer in that regard.
You seem rather mistaken. VLC has more encoding and streaming
features than mencoder. http://www.videolan.org/stream
On Fri, Sep 22, 2006 at 11:23:58AM +0200, Petter Reinholdtsen wrote:
> I agree, but understand and accept that the license issues need to be
> checked before it is accepted into debian.
I understand that, but mplayer inclusion is a problem since I remember that
mplayer exists.
I really don't kn
Hi,
Am Samstag, den 23.09.2006, 13:07 +0200 schrieb Bartosz Fenski aka
fEnIo:
> Please tell me what's wrong with *current* package and what can we do to
> make it better and stop saying me it's license issue.
IIRC, one of the things that lead to the rejection of the mplayer
package last time:
ht
Am Freitag 22 September 2006 13:21 schrieb Andreas Tille:
> On Fri, 22 Sep 2006, Steinar H. Gunderson wrote:
> > I've heard these claims (ÿÿplayer X should be more than good enough, what
> > do you need mplayer for these days?ÿÿ) for at least the last five years
> > -- it's a difficult claim to ref
> > Please tell me what's wrong with *current* package and what can we do to
> IIRC, one of the things that lead to the rejection of the mplayer
> package last time:
> http://lists.mplayerhq.hu/pipermail/mplayer-dev-eng/2006-July/044840.html
This has been fixed in both upstream (svn of mplayer), a
Am 2006-09-22 13:21:24, schrieb Andreas Tille:
> And, BTW, do we really need Emacs if we have vi?
>
>
Why not mcedit?
Thanks, Greetings and nice Day
Michelle Konzack
Systemadministrator
Tamay Dogan Network
Debian GNU/Linux Consultant
--
Linux-User #280138 with the Linux Cou
32 matches
Mail list logo
