2014/1/11 Reinhard Tartler <siret...@gmail.com>: > On Sat, Jan 11, 2014 at 1:27 PM, Bálint Réczey <bal...@balintreczey.hu> wrote: >> I think filing bugs is the best way of >> starting the removal of libpostproc. There are only a few packages >> depending on it, >> thus adding a linitian warning may be overkill: >> $ apt-cache rdepends libpostproc52 >> libpostproc52 >> Reverse Depends: >> libxine2-ffmpeg >> libxine1-ffmpeg >> xbmc-bin >> vlc-nox >> transcode >> mpv >> mplayer2 >> mplayer-gui >> mplayer >> mencoder >> libpostproc-dev >> gstreamer0.10-ffmpeg >> libgmerlin-avdec1 >> ffmpeg2theora >> >> Regarding the migration libpostproc is missing only from stable, it is >> present >> in testing thus every package using it can still migrate and I think it is >> OK. > > I think there may be a misunderstanding here, libpostproc *is* in > stable, but as part of the libav package. It was phased out after the > 0.5 release, and I packaged it as standalone. I've packaged it as > standalone source package because of the longish list of packages that > use it. > > The list of packages you quote above still seems rather long, and many > of those packages seem very undermaintained to me. Pushing them to > drop libpostproc may be the right thing to do, but please be aware > that this may take years. That's why I think a lintian warning may of > help here. > >>> I did not push very hard on this issue because I wanted to see if >>> there would be any upstream activity and it would make sense to keep >>> libpostproc anyways. It turns out that the upstream repository >>> http://git.videolan.org/?p=libpostproc.git didn't see real functional >>> development that aren't build fixes for years. Moreover, nobody >>> stepped up to take over the package. Now 1.5y later, it may be a good >>> time to phase libpostproc out of debian for good. >> I think we should discuss the mass bug filing on debian-devel in advance, >> but otherwise I'm OK with the removal. Would you like to announce the >> removal? > > I'm a bit uncomfortable with discussing that on debian-devel TBH, as I > don't see any chance we can remove libpostproc anytime soon. The > current libpostproc package is in testing and is supposely working > fine. Porting package to libavfilter is going to require upstream > involvement, which is looking at the list of affected upstreams not > going to happen soon. I'm really unsure what's the best way to proceed > from here. >From the email [1] on the VLC list I had the impression that libpostproc is broken. If it is working fine I don't see why it should be dropped and I'll keep libpostproc support in XBMC, too. I have looked into the source more closely and it seems using a very hidden setting XBMC users can pass postproc filters to libpostproc thus I can't replace it with vf_yadif.
So if libpostproc will stay with us could you please upload it to wheezy-backports to let me upload xbmc, too? Cheers, Balint [1]https://mailman.videolan.org/pipermail/vlc-devel/2013-March/092249.html > >> I will migrate XBMC to libavfilter when I can find some time for that. > > If XBMC needs a deinterlacing fitler, I believe that vf_yadif is one > of the best fitlers around for this task. I'd say this should be done > regardless what's happening with libpostproc. > > -- > regards, > Reinhard -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
