On 2022-02-17 19:13:08 +0100, Reimar Döffinger wrote: > > > On 16 Feb 2022, at 23:25, Sebastian Ramacher <sramac...@debian.org> wrote: > > > > Let's stop pretending that mplayer is maintained. > > What is your criteria for "maintained"? In Debian or upstream? Upstream > issues are still addressed from time to time, there are still several people > around that can address issues, in particular security issues.
It's definitely not maintained in Debian. Looking at the recent history of mplayer uploads, I did most of them without any bug triaging. So that's not what I would consider mplaer being maintained. If you want to pick up maintenance of mplayer in Debian, please feel free do that. > > The upstream mailing > > list infrastructure is gone > > I have absolutely no idea why you claim that. > It's there and working. Yesterday evening lists.mplayerhq.hu failed to resolve. Otherwise I would have forwarded the build failure with ffmpeg 5.0. In the end, this will need to be fixed for bookworm. Cheers > > > and development has been minimal over the > > last couple of months and years. > > It's mostly in maintenance mode I guess. > There might be Debian users who don't mind their software changing radically > as long as it keeps doing what they've used it for the previous years... > > > So I think we should not include > > mplayer in bookworm. mpv is a worthy replacement for mplayer. > > Possibly, though it's not a drop-in replacement (different command-line) and > supposedly it aims more at modern computers, so might not be so great a > replacement for legacy hardware. > > Best regards, > Reimar Döffinger -- Sebastian Ramacher
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
