Hi Jonas On 2026-08-16 14:10:06 +0200, Jonas Smedegaard wrote: > Hi Sebastian, > > Quoting Sebastian Ramacher (2026-08-16 13:40:26) > > On 2026-04-26 18:17:33 +0200, Jonas Smedegaard wrote: > > > Sebastian Ramacher wrote: > > > > Not at the moment. whisper.cpp and its (build-)dependencies are not > > > > in testing and looking at their current state they are not ready to > > > > be promoted to key packages. > > > > > > whisper.cpp migrated to testing 2 weeks ago. > > > > > > Please reconsider enabling support for it here. > > > > It does not look like whipser.cpp and its (transitive) dependencies are > > ready to become key packages: > > > > Marked for autoremoval on 05 September due to aardvark-dns, > > golang-github-bmizerany-assert, golang-github-masterminds-sprig, httpcore, > > jupyter-notebook, node-playwright, node-yarnpkg, towncrier, wasmedge: > > #1133663, #1135849, #1138720, #1141793, #1143319, #1143321, #1143428, > > #1143887, #1143916, #1143952 > > I don't think looking at "risk of problems if no action for more than a > month" is sensible. I suspect ffmpeg would not fit that bar - but as I > understand it we may never know that, because autoremovals are computed > only for non-key packages.
Well, we do know and I have removed problematic dependencies from ffmpeg to get them out of the key packages set in the past. > Put another way: What do ffmpeg maintainers consider the threshold for > acceptance, if neither "has stayed in testing for 2 week" nor "has > stayed testing for 4 months"? As we (as in the release team) are trying to reduce the size of the key package set, I am not willingly adding new packages to that set that have RC bugs open and unanswered for 4 months. Cheers -- Sebastian Ramacher
