Hi Andreas, 2016-01-07 23:35 GMT+00:00 Andreas Cadhalpun <andreas.cadhal...@googlemail.com>: > Dear Maintainer, > > the next version of FFmpeg is planned to be released this month > (and it might be called 3.0 instead of 2.9). > > Since I haven't heard back from you during the past two month > I'm wondering what the status of this bug is: > * Are you aware of the patch I provided? > * Why didn't you include the patch in your last upload? > * Do you plan an upload soon? > * Is upstream aware of the problem? > > If this bug isn't fixed soon, it will become release critical and > thus the package will either get NMUed or removed from testing. > > Also there is a new upstream version (3.4.0) available, which > could be uploaded together with this patch.
I think that Alberto was planning since many months ago to upload 3.4.0, and he mentioned it the last time that we met (about 3 weeks ago), but different issues (like the big GCC-5/C++11 transition, and smaller transitions after that) prevented him from doing that at the times when he had the time to prepare the whole move/transition. (OSG releases usually require SONAME/VERSION bumps if not source changes, even sometimes between -RC and final releases). openscenegraph is not a leaf package, but much further behind in priority than giflib, gdal, xine or ffmepg (and openscenegraph depends on a vast number of basic libraries), so in the end the transitions of all of these take precedence. 3.4.0 will probably require a transition for which maybe all rdeps are not ready, so would be a problem for the more important transitions that might get entangled with. I don't know if the fact of not including the patch of ffmpeg 2.9/3.0 was an oversight or on purpose because the plan to upload 3.4, or if upstream patches take care of this. If you plan to start the transition of ffmpeg imminently, maybe at this point it's better to include the patch than to start a transition also with OSG-3.4.0. ... all of this is subject to Alberto's opinion, who is better informed about all of this and follows upstream development closer. I just wanted to chime in because he might be busy and not reply for a few days, and specially to explain that moving to 3.4 might not be straightforward. Cheers. -- Manuel A. Fernandez Montecelo <manuel.montez...@gmail.com>
