Re: [FFmpeg-devel] Reintroducing FFmpeg to Debian
On Tue, 12 Aug 2014 16:51:40 +0200 Matthias Urlichs wrote: > Hi, > > Yes, that would be nice. The FFmpeg/Libav split is mostly a > > political/social issue though: it seems some (not all) members from > > each side just can't deal with some (not all) members from the other > > side. > > > > How do you fix this? It seems impossible. > > > Kick the non-cooperating people off both projects. :-P > at least 6+ devels refuse to work with each other , thats only a quick estimation, i havent polled everyone lately. ffmpeg and libav devs dont even TALK to each other. theres a couple devs who frequent both irc/lists, most do not. > (One slight problem with this solution is that the net effect is > likely to be three forks instead of two, not one …) i wrote up a current status of the projects, http://wiki.multimedia.cx/index.php?title=User_talk:Compn yes, you are correct, baptiste left and created ffmbc. ffmbc is nice, if we play our cards correctly we can get it merged into ffmpeg. -compn -- 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/20140812140432.4...@mi.rr.com
mplayer2 is a very poor fork name used to confuse users.
mplayer2 is a very poor fork name used to confuse users. it doesnt help that debian is using that name as a package: http://packages.qa.debian.org/m/mplayer/news/20110817T173341Z.html debian and uoti are setting themselves (and us) up for explaining to users which version is better. why each version is better. which version they are using when reporting bugs. why 'we dont have mencoder anymore?' 'why isnt gmplayer installed with mplayer2?' etc maybe i'll just go create the debian2 operating system or the google2 search engine. brilliant! -compn -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20110818235641.e2951c46.te...@twmi.rr.com
Re: mplayer2 is a very poor fork name used to confuse users.
On Fri, 19 Aug 2011 19:51:15 +0200, Kurt Roeckx wrote: >On Thu, Aug 18, 2011 at 11:56:41PM -0400, compn wrote: >> mplayer2 is a very poor fork name used to confuse users. > >So you think Debian should rename the package to confuse people >even more? no, i think 'iceweasel' didnt confuse anyone... >Or is there some other reason you mailed this to the Debian list? i hoped debian had some rule about it but i guess not. >I suggest you take it up with the people creating the fork. it took him months to stop using 'mplayer' as his project name. thanks for the insight. -compn -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20110819170451.3f353d6f.te...@twmi.rr.com
Re: mplayer2 is a very poor fork name used to confuse users.
On Fri, 19 Aug 2011 10:51:18 +0200, Adrian Knoth wrote: >On 08/19/11 05:56, compn wrote: > >> mplayer2 is a very poor fork name used to confuse users. >[..] >> debian and uoti are setting themselves (and us) up for explaining to >> users which version is better. > >While this is always the problem with forks, be assured you are not >alone. > >There are jackd1 and jackd2, and these are just two independent >implementations of the jack API. Users think because two is lager than >one, jackd2 must be the successor of jackd1, which is wrong. > >We have a FAQ on that (<http://jackaudio.org/jack12n>), maybe you want >one, too. ;) > >I always say "Think of 'number two', not 'version two'. It's just an >arbitrary enumeration." > > >HTH > it does help, thank you . i know to not hope for better outcomes in the future! -compn -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20110819171220.b8c587f8.te...@twmi.rr.com
