Re: NEW processing slowdown (Was: FAQ, Re: new mplayer)

On Sat, Oct 21, 2006 at 01:34:14PM +0200, Petter Reinholdtsen wrote: > I suspect something need to be done with the NEW process, as adding > more people seem to only improve the situation for a limited time. > Perhaps it could be optimized to make it less time consuming for those > processing it, o

NEW processing slowdown (Was: FAQ, Re: new mplayer)

[Tshepang Lekhonkhobe] > I don't know if this is answered elswhere, but how come it is still > stuck in NEW? The speed of NEW processing have slowed down significantly this autumn. There used to be enough people working on it, but at the moment there are too few doing it. This summer, it was do

Re: FAQ, Re: new mplayer

On 9/26/06, A Mennucc <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: hi everybody I just now notice the debate on mplayer going on; so here are a few answers [snip: mplayer is okay to go in] I don't know if this is answered elswhere, but how come it is still stuck in NEW? -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PRO

Re: new mplayer

On 10/6/06, Anthony DeRobertis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Not true. Mplayer is the only one with proper support for ASS subtitles. It is also the only one that plays dvd's without halting halfway (and in the case of xine, telling me there is a codec problem). Luckily Ubuntu has had player in

Re: new mplayer

Yavor Doganov wrote: > I was wondering, what's so important about mplayer? With totem and > vlc (and I anticipate there's something similar for KDE) you have > everything you need. Not true. Mplayer is the only one with proper support for ASS subtitles. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROT

Re: new mplayer

Hi, On Tue, 2006-09-26 at 01:46:42 +0200, Luca Capello wrote: > FWIW, I cannot build it in a clean and updated-to-latest-sid pbuilder > (complete script available on request, 10K gzipped): > Script started on Tue 26 Sep 2006 01:38:35 AM CEST > [EMAIL PROTECTED]:~/test$ sudo pbuilder build mplayer

Re: new mplayer

On Fri, Sep 22, 2006 at 12:01:32AM +0300, Yavor Doganov wrote: > I was wondering, what's so important about mplayer? With totem and > vlc (and I anticipate there's something similar for KDE) you have > everything you need. Except that mplayer is blazingly fast in comparison.

FAQ, Re: new mplayer

hi everybody I just now notice the debate on mplayer going on; so here are a few answers [many people] > MPlayer dev team and Debian do not work together this is not the case. I have been working with Diego Biurrun (of the mplayer team) and Joerg Jaspert (of ftp-master team) many changes that

Re: new mplayer

Hello! On Fri, 22 Sep 2006 16:35:27 +0200, Luca Capello wrote: > Cc:ing directly Andrea and Dariush (the Debian maintainer) to be > sure they read my post, hope you don't mind. Doing it again :-) > On Thu, 21 Sep 2006 15:36:16 +0200, A Mennucc wrote: >> I prepared a new mplayer (with help from

Re: new mplayer

Hello! Cc:ing directly Andrea and Dariush (the Debian maintainer) to be sure they read my post, hope you don't mind. On Thu, 21 Sep 2006 15:36:16 +0200, A Mennucc wrote: > I prepared a new mplayer (with help from Diego Biurrun of the > mplayer team) From the package description: Mplayer is

Re: new mplayer

Le jeudi 21 septembre 2006 à 10:00 -0600, Joseph Smidt a écrit : > > > On 9/21/06, A Mennucc <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > hi > > this mplayer does not contain 'mencoder' the legal status > of mencoder is not clear enough to include it into Debian > > Thanks f

Re: new mplayer

On 9/21/06, A Mennucc <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: hithis mplayer does not contain 'mencoder' the legal statusof mencoder is not clear enough to include it into Debian Thanks for letting me know.  In that case  I will have to look to third party stuff. :(                               Joseph Smi

Re: new mplayer

I understand the freeze is probably too soon, but I need mplayer for making movies I need for my physics research.  Please allow this mplayer into Etch. -- -   Joseph Smidt [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: new mplayer

Yavor Doganov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > I was wondering, what's so important about mplayer? With totem and > vlc (and I anticipate there's something similar for KDE) you have > everything you need. I've never tried mplayer and I don't know how it > looks or what it does, so that's just my un

Re: new mplayer

Andrew Donnellan wrote: > > Since when was MPlayer acceptable in the Debian archive? I think he meant NEW, not incoming. But let's not resurrect old discussions. I was wondering, what's so important about mplayer? With totem and vlc (and I anticipate there's something similar for KDE) you have

Re: new mplayer

On 9/21/06, A Mennucc <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: hi everybody I prepared a new mplayer (with help from Diego Biurrun of the mplayer team) it has version 1.0~rc1~svn19921 (note that I have decided to use the new ~ element, so this version appears to be older than 1.0rc1 or 1.0pre8 ; you may nee

Re: new mplayer 1.0pre7try2 package

Andrew writes: > Aren't we in a similar situation with other stuff that is in main > already? rsync springs to mind. Don't forget the Linux kernel. -- John Hasler -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: new mplayer 1.0pre7try2 package

On Sat, Jan 21, 2006 at 04:07:51PM +1000, Andrew Pollock wrote: > On Sat, Jan 21, 2006 at 06:06:36AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote: > > On Fri, Jan 20, 2006 at 12:08:39PM -0500, Nathanael Nerode wrote: > > > aj@azure.humbug.org.au wrote: > > > >mplayer has had an explicit warning from upstream that it

Re: new mplayer 1.0pre7try2 package

* Anthony Towns [2006-01-21 06:06:36]: > No, we have real problems with video codec stuff in Debian and they need > to be resolved thoroughly, not expediently. i was under the impression that the ftp-master team had started to work on that several month ago, shortly before the last mention of thi

Re: new mplayer 1.0pre7try2 package

On Sat, Jan 21, 2006 at 06:06:36AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote: > On Fri, Jan 20, 2006 at 12:08:39PM -0500, Nathanael Nerode wrote: > > aj@azure.humbug.org.au wrote: > > >mplayer has had an explicit warning from upstream that it's patented; > > The proposed tarball for Debian has stuff excised left

Re: new mplayer 1.0pre7try2 package

On Fri, Jan 20, 2006 at 12:08:39PM -0500, Nathanael Nerode wrote: > aj@azure.humbug.org.au wrote: > >mplayer has had an explicit warning from upstream that it's patented; > The proposed tarball for Debian has stuff excised left and right in > order to guarantee legality. Just check that the patent

Re: new mplayer 1.0pre7try2 package

On Fri, 2006-01-20 at 22:29 +0100, Joerg Jaspert wrote: > On 10540 March 1977, Christian Marillat wrote: > > >> Right, you've got a list of reasons why it got rejected and half > >> of that is still true. > > I still don't see why rte can't enter in main, when ffmpeg is already > > in main

Re: new mplayer 1.0pre7try2 package

On 10540 March 1977, Christian Marillat wrote: >> Right, you've got a list of reasons why it got rejected and half >> of that is still true. > I still don't see why rte can't enter in main, when ffmpeg is already > in main and does the same. Two bads doesnt make one good, so we stay with

Re: new mplayer 1.0pre7try2 package

aj@azure.humbug.org.au wrote: >mplayer has had an explicit warning from upstream that it's patented; The proposed tarball for Debian has stuff excised left and right in order to guarantee legality. Just check that the patented stuff was excised, right? Alternatively, I would be quite happy with t

Re: new mplayer 1.0pre7try2 package

Joerg Jaspert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On 10540 March 1977, Christian Marillat wrote: > >>> Contrast rte, where the ftpmasters told Marillat exactly what he needed to >>> remove to get the package in Debian, and he didn't do it, and declared that >>> he would keep uploading it. Leaving *th

Re: new mplayer 1.0pre7try2 package

I wrote: >> Contrast rte, where the ftpmasters told Marillat exactly what he needed to >> remove to get the package in Debian, and he didn't do it, and declared that >> he would keep uploading it. Leaving *that* in limbo is totally reasonable. Christian Marillat wrote: >I've *never* received an

Re: new mplayer 1.0pre7try2 package

On 10540 March 1977, Christian Marillat wrote: >> Contrast rte, where the ftpmasters told Marillat exactly what he needed to >> remove to get the package in Debian, and he didn't do it, and declared that >> he would keep uploading it. Leaving *that* in limbo is totally reasonable. > I've *never

Re: new mplayer 1.0pre7try2 package

Nathanael Nerode <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > aj@azure.humbug.org.au: [...] > Contrast rte, where the ftpmasters told Marillat exactly what he needed to > remove to get the package in Debian, and he didn't do it, and declared that > he would keep uploading it. Leaving *that* in limbo is tota

Re: new mplayer 1.0pre7try2 package

On Thu, Jan 19, 2006 at 03:15:46PM -0500, Nathanael Nerode wrote: > And to reiterate: > If Debian wants to be legally safe w.r.t. mpeg encoder patents, removing some > mpeg encoders and not others -- when the others have been pointed out -- is > really a bad idea. Nathanael, stop trying to make

Re: new mplayer 1.0pre7try2 package

Le jeudi 19 janvier 2006 à 15:15 -0500, Nathanael Nerode a écrit : > Is there an objection, or shall I file a serious bug against ffmpeg? The ffmpeg package doesn't include any faad, mp3, or other encoders for which patents are actively enforced. Therefore there is no reason to remove it from main

Re: new mplayer 1.0pre7try2 package

On Jan 19, Nathanael Nerode <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Is there an objection, or shall I file a serious bug against ffmpeg? Yes, I object to asking for removal of MPEG encoders because there is no good reason to do it. -- ciao, Marco signature.asc Description: Digital signature

Re: new mplayer 1.0pre7try2 package

On 10539 March 1977, Nathanael Nerode wrote: > Congrats Jeroen van Wolfellaar, ftpmaster extraordinare, not afraid to take > on > the difficult cases (he also managed the REJECT on rte IRRC). Nope, he didnt reject rte. -- bye Joerg > 16. What should you do if a security bug is discovered in o

Re: new mplayer 1.0pre7try2 package

Apologies to AJ and the ftpmasters. I found the *important* part of the thread, which I'd apparently missed during December, in which the ftpmasters... drumroll explain what would be needed for mplayer to go into Debian now, barring finding additional problems. Congrats Jeroen van Wolfella

Re: new mplayer 1.0pre7try2 package

aj@azure.humbug.org.au: > MJ Ray's already done such a summary; it's rather trivially inadequate, > due to the information its summarising being equally inadequate. > > http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2005/12/msg00901.html So the summary amounts to "patents". Is that right? In other wo

Re: new mplayer 1.0pre7try2 package

On Thu, Jan 19, 2006 at 11:08:42AM +0100, Petter Reinholdtsen wrote: > [Eric Dorland] > > This has probably been covered ad nauseum, but where do we stand in > > respect to getting mplayer in Debian? > [Nathanael Nerode] > > IIRC, the copyright issues were carefully worked out and solved > > after

Re: new mplayer 1.0pre7try2 package

[Eric Dorland] > This has probably been covered ad nauseum, but where do we stand in > respect to getting mplayer in Debian? [Nathanael Nerode] > IIRC, the copyright issues were carefully worked out and solved > after several years, finally reaching the approval of debian-legal. > At which point

Re: new mplayer 1.0pre7try2 package

Eric Dorland <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >This has probably been covered ad nauseum, but where do we stand in >respect to getting mplayer in Debian? IIRC, the copyright issues were carefully worked out and solved after several years, finally reaching the approval of debian-legal. At which point i

Re: new mplayer 1.0pre7try2 package

A Mennucc wrote: > hi everybody > > a new version of mplayer 1.0pre7try2 is available ; add either > > for the etch version, the line > "deb http://tonelli.sns.it/pub/mplayer/etch ./" Hi! Now we have mplayer in this repositories: http://tonelli.sns.it/pub/mplayer/etch ftp://ftp.nerim.net/

Re: new mplayer 1.0pre7try2 package

On Mon, Jan 16, 2006 at 06:27:40PM +0100, A Mennucc wrote: > hi everybody > a new version of mplayer 1.0pre7try2 is available ; add either > for the etch version, the line > "deb http://tonelli.sns.it/pub/mplayer/etch ./" > or > for the sarge version, the line > "deb http://tonelli.sns.i

Re: new mplayer 1.0pre7try2 package

* A Mennucc ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: > > hi everybody > > a new version of mplayer 1.0pre7try2 is available ; add either > > for the etch version, the line > "deb http://tonelli.sns.it/pub/mplayer/etch ./" > > or > > for the sarge version, the line > "deb http://tonelli.sns.it/pub/mpla