Hi Alessandro, 2015-04-29 14:58 GMT+02:00 Alessandro Ghedini <gh...@debian.org>: > On mer, apr 29, 2015 at 02:29:43 +0200, Bálint Réczey wrote: >> > Since there are concerns on shipping both libav and ffmpeg, we won't allow >> > ffmpeg unless it is chosen to be the default and there is a clear >> > transition >> > plan, so that we can switch from one to the other. Only then will the >> > block hint >> > be removed. >> There are no technical reasons for not having both in testing an I see >> this the only fair solution. There are no name- nor symbol collision >> between the packages. They co-exist perfectly on my systems, too. > > There is at least one reason that I can think of. Assuming the decision to > keep > either libav or ffmpeg (not both) stands, if ffmpeg is allowed to migrate and > other packages start depending on it, and if before the stretch release ffmpeg > is deemed not release ready (e.g. if libav is chosen), then more work will be > required to untangle the dependencies and have ffmpeg removed from testing. We can start the migration one year before the freeze date if only one of libav/ffmpeg is to be kept in Stretch. IMO we can keep both. I watched FFmpeg closely and the are very fast in fixing security issues and in general handling of bugs. OTOH I also think Libav deserves to be in testing/stable if they can fix their issues in a timely manner. If we want to assess the effort of supporting both or either of them we can count the number of hours spent supporting each on release management/security support/reverse depenencies' maintainer work. I spent way more than 80 hours on XBMC/Kodi because of the absence of FFmpeg in Debian for example.
Cheers, Balint -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-rc-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
