Hi All,
2015-04-29 20:36 GMT+02:00 Alessio Treglia :
> Hi Moritz,
>
> On Wed, Apr 29, 2015 at 7:22 PM, Moritz Mühlenhoff wrote:
>> Having both for a year along each other will only waste people's time. Now
>> at the beginning of the release cycle is the time to make a decision,
>> not by dragging
On Thu, Apr 30, 2015 at 11:24:38AM +0200, Julien Cristau wrote:
On Wed, Apr 29, 2015 at 20:48:50 +0200, Andreas Cadhalpun wrote:
It's not only a library, but also a set of command-line tools (the
ffmpeg binary package).
Those tools are entirely irrelevant to the current discussion.
It may be
On Wed, Apr 29, 2015 at 20:48:50 +0200, Andreas Cadhalpun wrote:
> Hi Julien,
>
> On 29.04.2015 20:40, Julien Cristau wrote:
> > On Wed, Apr 29, 2015 at 20:33:07 +0200, Andreas Cadhalpun wrote:
> >
> >> Having ffmpeg in testing during this time would be nice, e.g. so that
> >> people
> >> using
On 29.04.2015 20:47, Moritz Mühlenhoff wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 29, 2015 at 08:33:07PM +0200, Andreas Cadhalpun wrote:
>>> Having both for a year along each other will only waste people's time. Now
>>> at the beginning of the release cycle is the time to make a decision,
>>> not by dragging things into
On Wed, Apr 29, 2015 at 20:33:07 +0200, Andreas Cadhalpun wrote:
> Having ffmpeg in testing during this time would be nice, e.g. so that people
> using testing can easily compare them.
>
Not really. It's a library, users don't get to compare, they get to use
whichever one is chosen by the applic
Hi Julien,
On 29.04.2015 20:40, Julien Cristau wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 29, 2015 at 20:33:07 +0200, Andreas Cadhalpun wrote:
>
>> Having ffmpeg in testing during this time would be nice, e.g. so that people
>> using testing can easily compare them.
>>
> Not really. It's a library, users don't get to
On Wed, Apr 29, 2015 at 08:33:07PM +0200, Andreas Cadhalpun wrote:
> > Having both for a year along each other will only waste people's time. Now
> > at the beginning of the release cycle is the time to make a decision,
> > not by dragging things into a year as of today. Picking one of the two
> >
Hi Moritz,
On Wed, Apr 29, 2015 at 7:22 PM, Moritz Mühlenhoff wrote:
> Having both for a year along each other will only waste people's time. Now
> at the beginning of the release cycle is the time to make a decision,
> not by dragging things into a year as of today. Picking one of the two
> won'
Hi Moritz,
On 29.04.2015 20:22, Moritz Mühlenhoff wrote:
> Andreas Cadhalpun wrote:
>
>> But having mysql-5.5 and mariadb-10.0 in jessie is apparently no
>> problem, despite previous claims. What's the difference?
>
> To properly migrate over a daemon they need to co-exist for a stable
> release
Andreas Cadhalpun wrote:
> But having mysql-5.5 and mariadb-10.0 in jessie is apparently no
> problem, despite previous claims. What's the difference?
To properly migrate over a daemon they need to co-exist for a stable
release, while a lib does not. Stretch will only have one of them.
> How do
Hi Jonathan,
thanks for answering my question.
On 29.04.2015 16:52, Jonathan Wiltshire wrote:
> mysql-5.5 and mariadb-10.0 in Jessie is not exactly "no problem".
> There were extensive discussions before the freeze about which of
> the *four* forks of MySQL would ship in Jessie.
>
> Bear in mind
Hi Alessio,
On 29.04.2015 15:27, Alessio Treglia wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 29, 2015 at 12:47 PM, Andreas Cadhalpun
> wrote:
>> Therefore I'm planning to discuss a possible transition from
>> Libav to FFmpeg with the maintainers of the reverse dependencies,
>> before asking the TC for a resolution.
>
Hi Alessandro,
On 29.04.2015 16:08, Alessandro Ghedini wrote:
> The decision has to be taken *now*, not in one year.
We should start discussing, sure, but I would be surprised if a decision
could be reached in a time frame short enough to qualify as 'now'.
> Last year, just before the freeze, we
Hi Joerg,
2015-04-29 18:12 GMT+02:00 Joerg Jaspert :
> On 13926 March 1977, Bálint Réczey wrote:
>> 2015-04-29 15:38 GMT+02:00 Emilio Pozuelo Monfort :
>>> On 29/04/15 14:29, Bálint Réczey wrote:
The last word from the Security Team was Moritz's email which gave
ffmpeg green light after
On 13926 March 1977, Bálint Réczey wrote:
> 2015-04-29 15:38 GMT+02:00 Emilio Pozuelo Monfort :
>> On 29/04/15 14:29, Bálint Réczey wrote:
>>> The last word from the Security Team was Moritz's email which gave
>>> ffmpeg green light after Jessie's release.
>> No. He said that a decision between lib
On 2015-04-29 12:47, Andreas Cadhalpun wrote:
On 29.04.2015 12:28, Emilio Pozuelo Monfort wrote:
On 29/04/15 10:41, Bálint Réczey wrote:
2015-04-29 9:44 GMT+02:00 Emilio Pozuelo Monfort :
On 27/04/15 00:30, Andreas Cadhalpun wrote:
On 27.04.2015 00:01, Emilio Pozuelo Monfort wrote:
On 26/04/
On Wed, Apr 29, 2015 at 3:09 PM, Timothy Gu wrote:
> 1. FFmpeg and Libav can coexist for "a year or so"
> 2. A decision must be made before the Stretch freeze
> #1 did not make it clear where the packages are coexisting, that is very
> true. But for #2, the sentence would not have made any sense i
2015-04-29 16:08 GMT+02:00 Alessandro Ghedini :
> On Wed, Apr 29, 2015 at 03:28:40PM +0200, Andreas Cadhalpun wrote:
>> Hi Alessandro,
>>
>> On 29.04.2015 14:58, Alessandro Ghedini wrote:
>> > On mer, apr 29, 2015 at 02:29:43 +0200, Bálint Réczey wrote:
>> >>> Since there are concerns on shipping b
2015-04-29 16:17 GMT+02:00 Bálint Réczey :
> 2015-04-29 16:08 GMT+02:00 Alessandro Ghedini :
>> On Wed, Apr 29, 2015 at 03:28:40PM +0200, Andreas Cadhalpun wrote:
>>> Hi Alessandro,
>>>
>>> On 29.04.2015 14:58, Alessandro Ghedini wrote:
>>> > On mer, apr 29, 2015 at 02:29:43 +0200, Bálint Réczey wr
On Wed, Apr 29, 2015 at 02:55:39PM +0100, Alessio Treglia wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 29, 2015 at 2:46 PM, Bálint Réczey wrote:
> > He gave a green light to migration, it is very clear.
>
> If you're thinking of this [1] then yes, it's very clear that is *NOT*
> a green light at all.
I believe you are
On Wed, Apr 29, 2015 at 03:28:40PM +0200, Andreas Cadhalpun wrote:
> Hi Alessandro,
>
> On 29.04.2015 14:58, Alessandro Ghedini wrote:
> > 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 unle
Dear Moritz,
Could you please clarify Security Team's position? Do the Security
Team still want to keep ffmpeg out of testing?
Cheers,
Balint
2015-04-29 15:55 GMT+02:00 Alessio Treglia :
> On Wed, Apr 29, 2015 at 2:46 PM, Bálint Réczey wrote:
>> He gave a green light to migration, it is very cl
2015-04-29 15:27 GMT+02:00 Alessio Treglia :
> On Wed, Apr 29, 2015 at 12:47 PM, Andreas Cadhalpun
> wrote:
>> Therefore I'm planning to discuss a possible transition from
>> Libav to FFmpeg with the maintainers of the reverse dependencies,
>> before asking the TC for a resolution.
>
> What if one
On Wed, Apr 29, 2015 at 2:46 PM, Bálint Réczey wrote:
> He gave a green light to migration, it is very clear.
If you're thinking of this [1] then yes, it's very clear that is *NOT*
a green light at all.
[1] https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=763148#134
--
Alessio Treglia
2015-04-29 15:38 GMT+02:00 Emilio Pozuelo Monfort :
> On 29/04/15 14:29, Bálint Réczey wrote:
>> The last word from the Security Team was Moritz's email which gave
>> ffmpeg green light after Jessie's release.
>
> No. He said that a decision between libav and ffmpeg would still have to be
> made. I
On 29/04/15 14:29, Bálint Réczey wrote:
> The last word from the Security Team was Moritz's email which gave
> ffmpeg green light after Jessie's release.
No. He said that a decision between libav and ffmpeg would still have to be
made. IOW, we won't ship Stretch with both libav and ffmpeg.
Allowi
Hi Alessandro,
2015-04-29 14:58 GMT+02:00 Alessandro Ghedini :
> 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
>> >
On Wed, Apr 29, 2015 at 12:47 PM, Andreas Cadhalpun
wrote:
> Therefore I'm planning to discuss a possible transition from
> Libav to FFmpeg with the maintainers of the reverse dependencies,
> before asking the TC for a resolution.
What if one or more maintainers do not agree with you to make his
Hi Alessandro,
On 29.04.2015 14:58, Alessandro Ghedini wrote:
> 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
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 bloc
Dear Emilio,
2015-04-29 12:28 GMT+02:00 Emilio Pozuelo Monfort :
> On 29/04/15 10:41, Bálint Réczey wrote:
>> 2015-04-29 9:44 GMT+02:00 Emilio Pozuelo Monfort :
>>> On 27/04/15 00:30, Andreas Cadhalpun wrote:
On 27.04.2015 00:01, Emilio Pozuelo Monfort wrote:
> On 26/04/15 19:06, Andreas
On 29.04.2015 12:28, Emilio Pozuelo Monfort wrote:
> On 29/04/15 10:41, Bálint Réczey wrote:
>> 2015-04-29 9:44 GMT+02:00 Emilio Pozuelo Monfort :
>>> On 27/04/15 00:30, Andreas Cadhalpun wrote:
On 27.04.2015 00:01, Emilio Pozuelo Monfort wrote:
> On 26/04/15 19:06, Andreas Cadhalpun wrote
On 29/04/15 10:41, Bálint Réczey wrote:
> 2015-04-29 9:44 GMT+02:00 Emilio Pozuelo Monfort :
>> On 27/04/15 00:30, Andreas Cadhalpun wrote:
>>> On 27.04.2015 00:01, Emilio Pozuelo Monfort wrote:
On 26/04/15 19:06, Andreas Cadhalpun wrote:
> Dear release team,
>
> as you undoubtedly
2015-04-29 9:44 GMT+02:00 Emilio Pozuelo Monfort :
> On 27/04/15 00:30, Andreas Cadhalpun wrote:
>> On 27.04.2015 00:01, Emilio Pozuelo Monfort wrote:
>>> On 26/04/15 19:06, Andreas Cadhalpun wrote:
Dear release team,
as you undoubtedly know: jessie has been released! \o/
T
On 27/04/15 00:30, Andreas Cadhalpun wrote:
> On 27.04.2015 00:01, Emilio Pozuelo Monfort wrote:
>> On 26/04/15 19:06, Andreas Cadhalpun wrote:
>>> Dear release team,
>>>
>>> as you undoubtedly know: jessie has been released! \o/
>>>
>>> Thus this bug is now obsolete and I'm closing it.
>>>
>>> Ple
On 27.04.2015 00:01, Emilio Pozuelo Monfort wrote:
> On 26/04/15 19:06, Andreas Cadhalpun wrote:
>> Dear release team,
>>
>> as you undoubtedly know: jessie has been released! \o/
>>
>> Thus this bug is now obsolete and I'm closing it.
>>
>> Please remove the testing migration block of ffmpeg.
>
>
On 26/04/15 19:06, Andreas Cadhalpun wrote:
> Dear release team,
>
> as you undoubtedly know: jessie has been released! \o/
>
> Thus this bug is now obsolete and I'm closing it.
>
> Please remove the testing migration block of ffmpeg.
I don't think you understand the problem.
Having both ffmpe
Andreas,
how about leaving all these package conflicts and quarrels (that already
waste enough time of thousands of developers) behind and just use
0install, which is a /distributed/ package management system (supporting
all POSIX + Windows with one and only one package).
http://0install.net
Hi Paul,
It's more like the other way around. Because it is determined that ffmpeg
won't get into Jessie, we make no effort of making it work on Jessie.
You can however try cloning the source repo and manually disabling x265
support, and it should work (assuming all other dependencies are satisfi
Just to see what the fuss was about, and because I wanted
to use ffmpeg, I grabbed the unstable source and tried to
build with "sbuild -d testing".
I got an undefied dependancy on libx265-dev.
Sure enough I checked debian packages and libx265-dev
is in unstable but not testing.
I am testing, i
On Sat, Oct 18, 2014 at 05:08:11PM +0200, Balint Reczey wrote:
> Could you please confirm that bug will be closed and FFmpeg will be let
> migrating to testing after Jessie's release no matter if Libav is still
> present there?
After the jessie release a decision between libav and ffmpeg will nee
Dear Security and Release Teams,
On Sun, 05 Oct 2014 23:23:07 +0200 Andreas Cadhalpun
wrote:
> Hi Andreas,
>
> On 05.10.2014 22:54, Andreas Barth wrote:
> > * Andreas Cadhalpun (andreas.cadhal...@googlemail.com) [141005 22:36]:
> >> That's because the last message from a release team member in t
On 14Oct05:2254+0200, Andreas Barth wrote:
> Also, the re-evaluation happened. It however didn't had the outcome
> you wanted (basically because the web browser needs so many security
> updates which only could be done by backporting all of it that the
> embedded copy doesn't make any difference -
Hi Raphael,
On 05.10.2014 23:01, Raphael Geissert wrote:
I refrained myself from making this comment on the previous debian-devel
thread, but now I consider it necessary to be said: given your apparent lack
of understanding of the situation and way of communicating it only makes me
wonder on the
Hi Andreas,
On 05.10.2014 22:54, Andreas Barth wrote:
* Andreas Cadhalpun (andreas.cadhal...@googlemail.com) [141005 22:36]:
That's because the last message from a release team member in this bug
said [1]:
'However (and please note that I'm not a member of the security team
and just speak for m
On Sunday 05 October 2014 22:48:17 Andreas Cadhalpun wrote:
> When and how was this decision made, if apparently not even all release
> team members were aware of that?
I refrained myself from making this comment on the previous debian-devel
thread, but now I consider it necessary to be said: giv
* Andreas Cadhalpun (andreas.cadhal...@googlemail.com) [141005 22:36]:
> That's because the last message from a release team member in this bug
> said [1]:
> 'However (and please note that I'm not a member of the security team
> and just speak for myself here as always when not otherwise marked)
Hi,
On 05.10.2014 22:38, Cyril Brulebois wrote:
Andreas Cadhalpun (2014-10-05):
On 05.10.2014 21:27, Cyril Brulebois wrote:
I'm not sure why one would think the decision still needs to be made.
That's because the last message from a release team member in this
bug said [1].
1: https://bu
Andreas Cadhalpun (2014-10-05):
> On 05.10.2014 21:27, Cyril Brulebois wrote:
> > I'm not sure why one would think the decision still needs to be made.
>
> That's because the last message from a release team member in this
> bug said [1].
> 1: https://bugs.debian.org/763148#27
What I wrote appl
Hi,
On 05.10.2014 21:27, Cyril Brulebois wrote:
Andreas Cadhalpun (2014-10-05):
The whole discussion we are having currently is about letting FFmpeg
migrate to jessie!
So this is no 'unavoidable issue'.
But as you seem to be willing to consider this in principle, I think
now the time has com
Andreas Cadhalpun (2014-10-05):
> The whole discussion we are having currently is about letting FFmpeg
> migrate to jessie!
>
> So this is no 'unavoidable issue'.
>
> But as you seem to be willing to consider this in principle, I think
> now the time has come for the release team to make an offi
On 05/10/14 21:17, Andreas Cadhalpun wrote:
Hi,
On 05.10.2014 03:26, Michael Gilbert wrote:
On Fri, Oct 3, 2014 at 1:44 PM, Andreas Cadhalpun wrote:
But I don't think that the mere possibility of such problems is a sufficient
reason to disregard Debian policy, which clearly states that embedde
Hi,
On 05.10.2014 03:26, Michael Gilbert wrote:
On Fri, Oct 3, 2014 at 1:44 PM, Andreas Cadhalpun wrote:
But I don't think that the mere possibility of such problems is a sufficient
reason to disregard Debian policy, which clearly states that embedded code
copies should not be used.
This is esp
On Fri, Oct 3, 2014 at 1:44 PM, Andreas Cadhalpun wrote:
> But I don't think that the mere possibility of such problems is a sufficient
> reason to disregard Debian policy, which clearly states that embedded code
> copies should not be used.
> This is especially the case, if it prevents the properl
Hi Michael,
On 03.10.2014 02:10, Michael Gilbert wrote:
On Thu, Oct 2, 2014 at 1:16 PM, Andreas Cadhalpun wrote:
So I hope the maintainer of chromium is now happy to be able to use more
system libraries.
chromium moves way too fast to take advantage of any stable ffmpeg
api.
How did you com
On Thu, Oct 2, 2014 at 1:16 PM, Andreas Cadhalpun wrote:
> So I hope the maintainer of chromium is now happy to be able to use more
> system libraries.
chromium moves way too fast to take advantage of any stable ffmpeg
api. As soon as a new ffmpeg is out, they use it whether it breaks
abi/api or
Hi Moritz,
On 02.10.2014 18:43, Moritz Mühlenhoff wrote:
On Wed, Oct 01, 2014 at 04:32:24PM +0200, Andreas Cadhalpun wrote:
However, I can understand why one embedded
code copy is better than one embedded code copy plus a library in
addition to it.
This would be understandable, yes.
There ar
On Wed, Oct 01, 2014 at 04:32:24PM +0200, Andreas Cadhalpun wrote:
> >However, I can understand why one embedded
> >code copy is better than one embedded code copy plus a library in
> >addition to it.
>
> This would be understandable, yes.
>
> There are now two options:
> a) Let FFmpeg migrate to
Hi,
On 28.09.2014 14:44, Andreas Barth wrote:
* Andreas Cadhalpun (andreas.cadhal...@googlemail.com) [140928 14:36]:
On 28.09.2014 12:47, Andreas Barth wrote:
The release policy does say "Packages must be security-supportable". I
would be surprised if a statement from the security team (assu
Hi Moritz,
On 30.09.2014 22:45, Moritz Mühlenhoff wrote:
On Sun, Sep 28, 2014 at 11:27:03AM +0200, Andreas Cadhalpun wrote:
So would you please explain why you see a problem?
It has all been written before, I'm not going to repeat
it all over again. We can pick libav _or_ ffmpeg for jessie+1.
On Sun, Sep 28, 2014 at 11:27:03AM +0200, Andreas Cadhalpun wrote:
> So would you please explain why you see a problem?
It has all been written before, I'm not going to repeat
it all over again. We can pick libav _or_ ffmpeg for jessie+1.
EOD for me.
Chromium using a local copy of the lib doesn't
Hi,
On 28.09.2014 12:47, Andreas Barth wrote:
* Andreas Cadhalpun (andreas.cadhal...@googlemail.com) [140928 11:27]:
On 28.09.2014 10:24, Moritz Muehlenhoff wrote:
Package: ffmpeg
Severity: serious
As written before we can have only libav or ffmpeg in jessie.
I'm filing this blocker bug to pr
* Andreas Cadhalpun (andreas.cadhal...@googlemail.com) [140928 14:36]:
> On 28.09.2014 12:47, Andreas Barth wrote:
>> The release policy does say "Packages must be security-supportable". I
>> would be surprised if a statement from the security team (assuming
>> that Moritz raised that bug report w
* Andreas Cadhalpun (andreas.cadhal...@googlemail.com) [140928 11:27]:
> On 28.09.2014 10:24, Moritz Muehlenhoff wrote:
>> Package: ffmpeg
>> Severity: serious
>>
>> As written before we can have only libav or ffmpeg in jessie.
>> I'm filing this blocker bug to prevent testing migration until
>> th
Control: tag -1 moreinfo
On 28.09.2014 10:24, Moritz Muehlenhoff wrote:
Package: ffmpeg
Severity: serious
As written before we can have only libav or ffmpeg in jessie.
I'm filing this blocker bug to prevent testing migration until
this is sorted out.
As I have explained [1], I see no security
Package: ffmpeg
Severity: serious
As written before we can have only libav or ffmpeg in jessie.
I'm filing this blocker bug to prevent testing migration until
this is sorted out.
Cheers,
Moritz
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "uns
66 matches
Mail list logo
