Discussion:
Bug#729203: Reintroducing FFmpeg to Debian
(too old to reply)
Jose Luis Rivas
2014-07-25 11:27:54 UTC
Permalink
Hi all,
some of you may have noticed a weird ffmpeg package in the NEW queue[1].
In 2011 Libav[2] was forked from FFmpeg[3]. It was a time of great
uncertainty, the fork happened with much drama that didn't help making a
technical cut, and at that peculiar time Debian switched to Libav.
Hi Andreas and everyone,

FWIW, my experience with this is that I had to make my own FFmpeg
package a while ago [0] because I needed it for a project I was working
on at the moment [1].

[0] https://github.com/ghostbar/FFmpeg.deb
[1] https://github.com/ghostbar/RTSP-Streaming.js

The reason for having to package my own FFmpeg is the current libav
which is taking the space of ffmpeg seemed to conflict with every other
ffmpeg package out there, including marillat's and for my project I
actually needed ffmpeg, not libav since it didn't had the functionality.
(More specifically: the ability to take still images from an rtsp
stream).

Not having FFmpeg available in the debian repositories is a nuissance,
and certainly having libav instead which seems to be a fork yet not
having the full FFmpeg functionality and using the same package name is
worst. I didn't figured this out at first because the binary said
`ffmpeg`. Of course, I'm talking about [2] since now that seems to not
be an issue yet remains the lack of functionality.

[2] https://packages.debian.org/wheezy/ffmpeg

If the issue is that this would mean having to fix security bugs twice
then it would be reasonable to stop shipping libav and instead ship
ffmpeg, since has more functionality and AFAICS from their repos bunch
of active bug-fixing.

I honestly do not understand why ffmpeg is not in the repos nor why
there seems to be an active movement to block it.

Kind regards.
--
Jose Luis Rivas · ghostbar <http://ghostbar.co>
The Debian Project · <http://www.debian.org>
GPG · D278 F9C1 5E54 61AA 3C1E 2FCD 13EC 43EE B9AC 8C43
Niv Sardi
2014-08-05 14:49:59 UTC
Permalink
I feel the debate is going a bit on a tangent in this thread, so I'd like
to take an opportunity to recenter it a tad.​

​We have many issues that were risen in this thread, ​
​but ​
I believe that the cut has to be made by the people that we have in special
roles for; -security for security concerns, -release for release scheduling
and required transitions and our many maintainers of multimedia related
packages to know what they want to link their packages against
​​
​, and well, as it has been named, tech-ctte for technical matters that we
can't resolve in -devel.​

​In few words​
,
​this is how I understand​
the core of Andreas' plan, and has motivated many technical decisions in
the packaging.

​Many ​
​​
sensible
​ technical decisions that lead to a polite and correct way to go.

Now, our main blocker to get onto the next steps Andreas has exposed with
great detail in his original mail is that the package has been sitting in
NEW for the last
​3​
months.

As people voiced their feelings, it seems the vast majority does not
opposes having FFmpeg in experimental
​​.

So my point here is:
​Shouldn't we first get it in the archive ? ​
how can we help speed​ing
​ ​
it out of NEW ?

​The current packaging is a 'low-conflict' one, it can be easily
transitioned into replacing libav if that's what gets decided further down
the line. Hence, I see no blocker​ in getting it in.

The licencing has an ancestor with libav, and the new files have been
following the same inclusion pattern. So my guess is that the blocker may
be packaging quality, as the sponsor, I have checked it, but maybe we can
help reconfort ftpmasters with more eyes on it ?
​Thanks,​
--
Niv
Andreas Cadhalpun
2014-08-07 23:53:15 UTC
Permalink
user debian-***@lists.debian.org
usertags 729203 copyright-review-requested
thanks

Hi Charles,
A few years ago, I made a proposal for peer-reviewing copyright files in the
NEW queue.
https://wiki.debian.org/CopyrightReview
The goal is not to substitute for the inspection by the FTP Master team, but to
correct defects before their review, therefore saving their time.
This looks like a good idea, but unfortunately it seems not to be an
often used process.
I have done a few dozens of these reviews and share Thorsten's impression in
general (althouth in my opinion 80 % is quite an upper-range estimate…).
I have no accurate numbers, but I just reviewed three packages [1-3] and
found problems in all of them. It's a rather small sample size, but still...
I encourage everybody who uploads to the NEW queue to review some packages in
exchange. To help people reviewing your package, please make sure that a
copy is accessible (source packages in the NEW queue are not accessible outside
the FTP Master team).
Now, could anyone review the debian/copyright file of ffmpeg?
The sources are available in this repository:
https://anonscm.debian.org/cgit/collab-maint/ffmpeg.git

Best regards,
Andreas

1: https://bugs.debian.org/686447
2: https://bugs.debian.org/735884
3: https://bugs.debian.org/683746
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-***@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact ***@lists.debian.org
Charles Plessy
2014-08-09 09:45:03 UTC
Permalink
user debian-***@lists.debian.org
usertags 729203 one-copyright-review
thanks
Post by Andreas Cadhalpun
Now, could anyone review the debian/copyright file of ffmpeg?
https://anonscm.debian.org/cgit/collab-maint/ffmpeg.git
Hi Andreas,

I searched for license information missing from your debian/copyright and could
find only one case, libavutil/x86/x86inc.asm, which is under the ISC license.

The debian/copyright file of your package looks comprehensive to me.

Have a nice week-end,
--
Charles Plessy
Tsurumi, Kanagawa, Japan
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-***@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact ***@lists.debian.org
Andreas Cadhalpun
2014-08-09 11:34:04 UTC
Permalink
Hi Charles,
Post by Charles Plessy
I searched for license information missing from your debian/copyright and could
find only one case, libavutil/x86/x86inc.asm, which is under the ISC license.
The debian/copyright file of your package looks comprehensive to me.
Many thanks for the copyright review. (I know it is a lot of work.)

I added the missing information you found (and also uppercased some
license names to match the copyright format specification) [1].

It's probably not necessary to make a new upload to the NEW queue for
this change. In the repository is a new upstream version anyway and it
will be uploaded, once the current version gets accepted.

Best regards,
Andreas


1:
https://anonscm.debian.org/cgit/collab-maint/ffmpeg.git/commit/?id=d5f7788c60951684851ac8ef7fbb468bd385cdeb
Jonas Smedegaard
2014-08-09 11:51:14 UTC
Permalink
Quoting Andreas Cadhalpun (2014-08-09 13:34:04)
Post by Andreas Cadhalpun
Post by Charles Plessy
I searched for license information missing from your debian/copyright
and could find only one case, libavutil/x86/x86inc.asm, which is
under the ISC license.
The debian/copyright file of your package looks comprehensive to me.
Many thanks for the copyright review. (I know it is a lot of work.)
I added the missing information you found (and also uppercased some
license names to match the copyright format specification) [1].
It's probably not necessary to make a new upload to the NEW queue for
this change. In the repository is a new upstream version anyway and it
will be uploaded, once the current version gets accepted.
In my experience you need not wait for ftpmaster approval to issue
subsequent releases: When approving, they will simply approve the
subsequent releases as well.

If you don't release updates, you may risk that when ftpmaster finds
time to inspect your package they find flaws (which you knew about and
had prepared fixes for but did not in fact formally provide) - and you
get the package rejected and need to wait for _next_ window that they
find time to inspect it anew.


- Jonas
--
* Jonas Smedegaard - idealist & Internet-arkitekt
* Tlf.: +45 40843136 Website: http://dr.jones.dk/

[x] quote me freely [ ] ask before reusing [ ] keep private
Andreas Cadhalpun
2014-08-09 12:27:07 UTC
Permalink
Hi Jonas,
Post by Jonas Smedegaard
Quoting Andreas Cadhalpun (2014-08-09 13:34:04)
Post by Andreas Cadhalpun
Post by Charles Plessy
I searched for license information missing from your debian/copyright
and could find only one case, libavutil/x86/x86inc.asm, which is
under the ISC license.
The debian/copyright file of your package looks comprehensive to me.
Many thanks for the copyright review. (I know it is a lot of work.)
I added the missing information you found (and also uppercased some
license names to match the copyright format specification) [1].
It's probably not necessary to make a new upload to the NEW queue for
this change. In the repository is a new upstream version anyway and it
will be uploaded, once the current version gets accepted.
In my experience you need not wait for ftpmaster approval to issue
subsequent releases: When approving, they will simply approve the
subsequent releases as well.
If you don't release updates, you may risk that when ftpmaster finds
time to inspect your package they find flaws (which you knew about and
had prepared fixes for but did not in fact formally provide) - and you
get the package rejected and need to wait for _next_ window that they
find time to inspect it anew.
Thanks for warning me, as that would indeed be unfortunate, so I'm going
to ask my sponsor to make a new upload.

Best regards,
Andreas

Continue reading on narkive:
Loading...