On Sun, Feb 16, 2014 at 12:30:26PM +, Jonathan Dowland wrote:
> On Sun, Feb 16, 2014 at 02:25:18PM +0200, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> > How do you plan to address the DSA veto against having both sources in
> > the archive?
> >
> > https://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2014/02/msg00668.html
>
> I
On Sun, Feb 16, 2014 at 02:25:18PM +0200, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> How do you plan to address the DSA veto against having both sources in
> the archive?
>
> https://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2014/02/msg00668.html
I did not intepret that message as a DSA veto. But, with regards making
sure the
On Thu, Feb 13, 2014 at 01:15:34PM +, Jonathan Dowland wrote:
>...
> So, I fully support packaging ffmpeg as a binary package for the command
> line client at the very least, and perhaps as a necessary first step.
>...
> I suspect that the animosity I've read in this thread from people
> toward
Hi Rogério, thanks for looking into resolving this situation.
I haven't read every last mail in the history of this issue and recently
have confined myself to just this bug. There's obviously a detailed
history and a lot of animosity.
I'd say first and foremost, I miss ffmpeg most as a command-li
On Mon, Feb 03, 2014 at 07:13:57PM -0500, Antoine Beaupré wrote:
> On 2014-02-03 18:21:34, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> > On Mon, Feb 03, 2014 at 05:58:48PM -0500, Antoine Beaupré wrote:
>...
> >> One of the proposals on the table is to bring back ffmpeg, at least as a
> >> program, possibly as a library.
On Mon, Feb 03, 2014 at 04:15:07PM -0800, Timothy Gu wrote:
>...
> > On Feb 3, 2014 3:39 PM, "Jan Larres" wrote:
> > >
> > > On 04/02/14 12:08, Antoine Beaupré wrote:
> > > > If both packages are ABI-compatible, then ffmpeg can be designed as a
> > > > drop-in replacement for libav and users will
> On Feb 3, 2014 3:24 PM, "Adrian Bunk" wrote:
>
> > That is a mess, and would have to be sorted out by the Debian libav and
> > ffmpeg maintainers before such an upload could happen.
>
> Agreed. But not exactly sure whether pkg-multimedia would want to
> collaborate...
Considering the history
On Tue, Feb 04, 2014 at 10:59:50AM +0100, Lorenzo Sutton wrote:
> On 03/02/2014 23:25, Adrian Bunk wrote:
>...
> I guess lots of the confusion (at least from a users' point of view)
> comes from the fact that the description of the ffmpeg package
> states:
>
> " Libav is a complete, cross-platform
On 03/02/2014 23:25, Adrian Bunk wrote:
On Mon, Feb 03, 2014 at 04:32:49PM -0500, Antoine Beaupré wrote:
On 2014-02-03 16:22:38, Adrian Bunk wrote:
...
But if someone wants, as Lorenzo suggested, an "apt-get install ffmpeg"
to magically switch all applications like VLC from using libav to
ffmpe
Sorry, forgot to CC bug tracker...
-- Forwarded message --
From: "Timothy Gu"
Date: Feb 3, 2014 3:32 PM
Subject: Re: Bug#729203: CTTE and reasonable solutions
To: "Adrian Bunk"
Cc:
On Feb 3, 2014 3:24 PM, "Adrian Bunk" wrote:
> That is a mess
Sorry, forgot to CC bug tracker...
-- Forwarded message --
From: "Timothy Gu"
Date: Feb 3, 2014 3:56 PM
Subject: Re: Bug#729203: CTTE and reasonable solutions
To: "Jan Larres"
Cc:
>
> On Feb 3, 2014 3:39 PM, "Jan Larres" wrote:
> >
&g
On 2014-02-03 18:21:34, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 03, 2014 at 05:58:48PM -0500, Antoine Beaupré wrote:
>> On 2014-02-03 17:25:40, Adrian Bunk wrote:
>>...
> Since the original intention of this RFP that you were referring to
> listed chromium, that implies that you were saying that chromium
Sorry, forgot to CC bug tracker...
-- Forwarded message --
From: "Timothy Gu"
Date: Feb 3, 2014 3:28 PM
Subject: Re: Bug#729203: CTTE and reasonable solutions
To: "Antoine Beaupré"
Cc:
On Feb 3, 2014 3:12 PM, "Antoine Beaupré" wrote:
>
> O
On 04/02/14 12:08, Antoine Beaupré wrote:
> If both packages are ABI-compatible, then ffmpeg can be designed as a
> drop-in replacement for libav and users will be free to choose.
As far as I understand it the problem is that it is *not* a drop-in
replacement as far as the libraries are concerned,
On Mon, Feb 03, 2014 at 05:58:48PM -0500, Antoine Beaupré wrote:
> On 2014-02-03 17:25:40, Adrian Bunk wrote:
>...
> >> Then maybe this RFP can focus on providing the ffmpeg binary again and
> >> not necessarily get into replacing libav altogether, which I think was
> >> the original intention here
On 2014-02-03 17:58:48, Antoine Beaupré wrote:
> I see there was one email about ffmpeg on the mailing list
> about a month ago, without any response, but that's all...
I was talking about the deprecated debian-multimedia, my bad.
A.
--
The Net treats censorship as damage and routes around it.
On 2014-02-03 17:13:43, Rogério Brito wrote:
>> Rogério, I would suggest you go ahead with the packaging and an upload,
>> don't let the flames fan your enthousiasm.
>
> Thanks for the encouragement, Antoine. I am mostly paralized with this
> situation and I don't really know how to proceed. I thin
On 2014-02-03 17:25:40, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> Before what you quote he said in the same email:
> Agree with many on at least providing the *option* for users to have
> the original ffmpeg instead of libav
>
> There is no libav program, and he is clearly talking about the libraries.
I assumed l
On Mon, Feb 03, 2014 at 08:13:43PM -0200, Rogério Brito wrote:
>...
> > Rogério, I would suggest you go ahead with the packaging and an upload,
> > don't let the flames fan your enthousiasm.
>
> Thanks for the encouragement, Antoine. I am mostly paralized with this
> situation and I don't really k
On Mon, Feb 03, 2014 at 04:32:49PM -0500, Antoine Beaupré wrote:
> On 2014-02-03 16:22:38, Adrian Bunk wrote:
>...
> > But if someone wants, as Lorenzo suggested, an "apt-get install ffmpeg"
> > to magically switch all applications like VLC from using libav to
> > ffmpeg, then one of the requirem
First of all, thank you very much for CC'ing me, as I am not receiving
things from this bug report (despite having tried to subscribe to the bug).
On Feb 03 2014, anarcat wrote:
> On Fri, 10 Jan 2014 18:52:06 +0200, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> > It is a misconception that making this optional would be a
On 2014-02-03 16:22:38, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 03, 2014 at 12:48:45PM -0500, Antoine Beaupré wrote:
>> On 2014-02-03 12:18:45, Adrian Bunk wrote:
>> > Can you clarify whether you are sincerely asking for clarification, or
>> > whether that would be pointless since you've anyway already d
On Mon, Feb 03, 2014 at 12:48:45PM -0500, Antoine Beaupré wrote:
> On 2014-02-03 12:18:45, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> > Can you clarify whether you are sincerely asking for clarification, or
> > whether that would be pointless since you've anyway already decided that
> > everything I write are "flames"
On 2014-02-03 12:18:45, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> Can you clarify whether you are sincerely asking for clarification, or
> whether that would be pointless since you've anyway already decided that
> everything I write are "flames" and anything I'll answer you'll only use
> for further attacks against
On Mon, Feb 03, 2014 at 10:33:17AM -0500, anarcat wrote:
> On Fri, 10 Jan 2014 18:52:06 +0200, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> > On Fri, Jan 10, 2014 at 08:17:45AM +0100, Lorenzo Sutton wrote:
> > > Agree with many on at least providing the *option* for users to have
> > > the original ffmpeg instead of libav
On Fri, 10 Jan 2014 18:52:06 +0200, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 10, 2014 at 08:17:45AM +0100, Lorenzo Sutton wrote:
> > Agree with many on at least providing the *option* for users to have
> > the original ffmpeg instead of libav and using sensible clear names
> > and descriptions for both pac
26 matches
Mail list logo
