> Most forks cause additional work which, in the long term, is better spent
> elsewhere. The ffmpeg/libav split is ample proof of that; in an ideal
> world, you wouldn't need the mythtv fork either.
>
> Debian's position is that we _really_ want to avoid having multiple copies
> of essentially the
On 9 August 2014 19:25, Andreas Cadhalpun
wrote:
> I can understand that statically linking is easier from an upstream point of
> view, but it has important disadvantages for a distribution such as Debian
> and thus should be avoided if possible.
> It is also the responsibility of a distribution t
On 10 August 2014 13:38, Michael Niedermayer wrote:
> On Sat, Aug 09, 2014 at 06:26:19PM +0100, Kieran Kunhya wrote:
> [...]
>
>> ... and was designed by a larger
>> group instead of libswresample which was basically one person (and
>> literally appeared in
> Also ive offered my resignation in the past.
> I do still offer to resign from the FFmpeg leader position, if it
> resolves this split between FFmpeg and Libav and make everyone work
> together again. I never understood why people who once where friends
> became mutually so hostile
The big eleph
> but either way, id like to suggest again, we move forward and
> rather discuss how we can improve the situation, do something about
> the split and move toward un-doing it!
We look forward to seeing you in Dublin then.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a s
5 matches
Mail list logo
