Re: Reintroducing FFmpeg to Debian
Stefano Sabatini wrote: > Please refrain from claiming other people are spreading lies, > especially with no specific references (and this is not the place > where to discuss such things). Attila already amended one of the false statement that had been spun around (about the people behind Libav "stealing" infrastructure from whoever), Kieran already amended the claim of avresample being a fork of swresample. The list is quite long and debunking each of the statements could take a lot of time. I'm going to address two historical "misrepresentations": # The change of management Michael Niedermayer managed to get demoted from his leader position by the topmost 18[1] people involved in FFmpeg by the time due his tendency of not following the rules. that after weeks from being voted to stay as leader by 15, 5 explicitly stating their vote was conditioned by his behaviour and 1 definitely against him.[2] His demotion is due to acts in full disregard of the policies in place, even those enforced automatically by the svn hooks. The fact he bullied and belittled volunteers and contributor can be checked by digging the mailing list during the months and the year before the management change and it adds up. # The split The split is mainly due to trademark ownership: He managed to gain back the use of the name from Fabrice Bellard, the trademark owner and the only one controlling the dns, thus the people not agreeing with Michael decided to just use a different name and keep working on the project. The dns started pointing another host, the people owning the previous infrastructure kept owning their boxes as Attila already explained. Now back to the rest of the email and yet another misconception. > As for me, I don't consider Libav developers neither friends nor > enemies. We reached a point when we got two different projects with > different policies, culture, and guidelines. Then you should be aware > that the way the Libav fork was created was hostile towards FFmpeg, so No, Libav as project enforces a set of simple rules and enforces them for everybody, no matter who. The people working on Libav were hostile to Michael Niedermayer attitude to override any rules for himself and use the same rules to hammer whoever confronted him. > you shouldn't be surprised that there was (and still there is) a > perceived hostility between the two projects. If you or other Libav or > FFmpeg developers want the two projects to collaborate more, this can > be discussed, possibly with *specific* proposals, but again, > debian-devel is not the right place where to discuss such things. Personally I have no problems in collaborating with anybody. Although it could be a little difficult collaborating with the person that suggested to fund our burial [3] and I'm quite sure the other one that called us swine back in the time and refused to even say hi to me in person this year when we were at the same booth at LinuxTag. lu [1] http://lwn.net/Articles/423703/ [2] http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.video.ffmpeg.devel/118594 [3] https://lists.ffmpeg.org/pipermail/ffmpeg-devel/2011-January/107416.html -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/53ed440a.3020...@gentoo.org
Re: Reintroducing FFmpeg to Debian
On 17/08/14 10:28, Michael Niedermayer wrote: > On Fri, Aug 15, 2014 at 01:19:38AM +0200, Luca Barbato wrote: >> Stefano Sabatini wrote: > [...] >> >> The list is quite long and debunking each of the statements could take a >> lot of time. >> >> I'm going to address two historical "misrepresentations": >> > >> # The change of management >> >> Michael Niedermayer managed to get demoted from his leader position by >> the topmost 18[1] people involved in FFmpeg by the time due his tendency >> of not following the rules. that after weeks from being voted to stay as >> leader by 15, 5 explicitly stating their vote was conditioned by his >> behaviour and 1 definitely against him.[2] > > There was a vote on the ffmpeg-devel list, everyone can recount the > votes although its probably a bit work to do given its a large thread > with lots of other discussions (the links below point to that thread) > I dont remember the exact numbers but there was a majority in > support of me in all possible variants in which one could count the > votes I did and wrote that above, anybody is welcome to check if I miscounted so I provided a link in the previous email, repeated here[0] for convenience. > Ive asked [1][2] back then what "policy in place" was broken - you tried to commit code that was blatantly below the already lax quality requirements (e.g. it contained tabs, it was (and still is) hard to read, it contains dubious, aka security-concerning, practices), I told you not to commit those as-is and you blatantly ignored me and the others against it. I'm referring to the mplayer filters. - your interaction with whoever wasn't in full agreement with you was horrible, I told you for months in public and private, you seemed to agree just to behave in even worse way later. The interactions with Mans are probably the best example of this. - your interaction with whoever provided infrastructure service was horrible[1]. As Attila already stated here[2] and here[3] > In retrospect, bigger changes should have been made to the policy > if that had avoided the takeover attempt and fork, but the takeover > attempt came a bit out of the blue, at least for me and it definitely > left the feeling that there was more interrest in seizing the > opertunity for a takeover instead of discussing and amending the > policy. I discussed with you in private for months before that and the outcome had been none. > Then i think we should reunite the projects with some common > development policy most are happy with. Given this email and the PS below doesn't seem that you want to collaborate in any productive way. > PS: please spare the world of these defamation attempts People is free to check, count and sift the mailing list and git history and form an informed opinion. I'm sick of being depicted as traitorous swine[4] or monkey[5] or whichever colorful expression do you use nowadays and even more annoyed of having people thinking that must be true since we aren't answering back to your outlandish claims. > and i also think we should look forward and solve the issues we have > now and not fight over what happenend 3-4 years ago or who made more > mistakes ... The current issue can be summarized with: - you leveraging the trademark of FFmpeg to get more mindshare for almost free. - you leeching my work by leveraging git merge daily and presenting yourself as more secure by "fixing" fuzz-reports and spamming CVEs. - you putting in FFmpeg pretty much every patch from every branch you can come by, including my incomplete work from github (you did for pulse and segment with interesting results, hopefully you won't do that again anymore). - you "contacting" whoever brings patches in Libav. (Keiji was not happy to remember you and we got other people quietly asking what to do of it). [0] The vote http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.video.ffmpeg.devel/118594 c.f. Change of management http://lwn.net/Articles/423703/ [1] http://ffmpeg.org/pipermail/ffmpeg-devel/2010-July/088546.html [2] http://lists.debian.org/20140812171317.d2ce47b8da41b72e79f39...@kinali.ch [3] http://lists.debian.org/20140812214537.0bc793c5bbdebd8efd9f3...@kinali.ch [4] https://lists.ffmpeg.org/pipermail/ffmpeg-devel/2011-March/108151.html [5] http://article.gmane.org/gmane.comp.video.ffmpeg.devel/130994 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/53f0ff27.4090...@gentoo.org
Re: Bug#750817: ITP: x265 -- x265 HEVC Encoder
On 10/06/14 02:06, Reinhard Tartler wrote: > On Sun, Jun 8, 2014 at 4:25 AM, Andrei POPESCU > wrote: >> Control: reassign -1 wnpp >> >> On Sb, 07 iun 14, 08:47:41, Rico Tzschichholz wrote: >>> Package: x265 >>> Severity: wishlist >>> >>> Package: wnpp >>> Severity: wishlist >>> >>> >>> Package name: x265 >>> URL : https://bitbucket.org/multicoreware/x265/wiki/Home >>> License : GPL2, BSD >>> Description : free library for encoding H265/HEVC video streams. > > This package is going to be maintained under the pkg-multimedia umbrella. > > Since this package is probably going to be similar to x264, I guess > it's easiest to track the github mirror of the upstream mercurial > repo. +1 > It seems that there is no upstream mailing list, nor other way to > contact the upstream devs at this point. Luca, can you confirm or > correct this? I'm quite sure there is a mailing list. https://mailman.videolan.org/listinfo/x265-devel > I took a first look at the package, and it builds a shared library by > default (good). Unfortunately, it doesn't provide a proper SONAME: > > $ objdump -p libx265.so | grep SONAME > SONAME libx265.so > > This makes me wonder if it's worth building it as shared library in > debian as this point, or if we wouldn't be better of with a static > library only. I wonder what is upstream's take on this? Upstream should be notified, I'd advise to just provide the static library given the kind of usecase. lu -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/53965f41.7070...@gentoo.org
