On Tue, Dec 12, 2006 at 08:03:24PM +0100, Josselin Mouette wrote:
> I kindly ask the Technical Committee to rule on the gstreamer0.10-ffmpeg
> case.
> The gstreamer0.10-ffmpeg package includes its own private ffmpeg copy
> and is built against it. Upstream's rationale is that ffmpeg's API and
Hi,
as one of the GStreamer maintainers I also wanted to express my oppinion
on this issue.
First of all I can only second Loic's statement that this is definitely
nothing that should be changed at this stage of release before etch. The
change is far too intrusive and even if it fixes h264 videos
Le mercredi 13 décembre 2006 à 01:19 +0100, Loïc Minier a écrit :
> It's not very clear whether you think I'm objecting to the changes in
> all cases, or only before etch. I am against such a change before etch
> in all cases given where we stand in the release cycle.
Yes, my request is about
On Tue, Dec 12, 2006, Josselin Mouette wrote:
> I kindly ask the Technical Committee to rule on the gstreamer0.10-ffmpeg
> case.
While I would personally value the tech-ctte as a mean to resolve
problematic technical issues and in some cases save us of flames, I
don't think it was needed for t
Package: tech-ctte
Severity: normal
Hi,
I kindly ask the Technical Committee to rule on the gstreamer0.10-ffmpeg
case.
The gstreamer0.10-ffmpeg package includes its own private ffmpeg copy
and is built against it. Upstream's rationale is that ffmpeg's API and
ABI aren't stable and that they
5 matches
Mail list logo
