Hello, On Friday, 07 August 2015 at 15:36, wm4 wrote: > On Thu, 6 Aug 2015 23:26:05 +0200 > Andreas Cadhalpun <andreas.cadhal...@googlemail.com> wrote: > > On 06.08.2015 00:53, wm4 wrote: [...] > > > Why do we have to suffer because Debian tries to compile ancient > > > releases against newer ffmpeg/libav releases? (How does that even make > > > sense?) > > > > This is just your prejudice that doesn't have much to do with reality. > > I've had very much experience with distro reality. They tend to make > everyone's life harder (including their own) by demanding that EVERY > project uses the same libav* build.
Actually, speaking with my distro hat on, that's more or less the idea, though I wouldn't say we (Fedora/RPMFusion) are demanding anything. We do want to ship a single ffmpeg build per distro release and have each depending project link against it. If that means back/forward-porting code to adapt the other projects to API changes then that's the package maintainer's job. > Well, if you want to do this, you're free to do so. But it's not our > problem. Feel free to put as much effort into it as you like. Indeed. Though we may ask politely that FFmpeg project supports a given ffmpeg release for the ~13 months of a given Fedora release lifecycle. We would very much appreciate porting-to-new-API guides as that would make providing patches to depending project upstreams a lot easier. [...] > > >> Better documentation would surely be helpful. > > > > > > Many of these are non-trivial. Project authors either update their > > > code, or the project dies. It's simple. If you don't want this, keep an > > > old ffmpeg/libav package around for them. But you distro peoples want a > > > single libavcodec package, no matter how much this fucking tortures > > > everyone. > > > > So instead of keeping a little bit of deprecated code, everyone should > > keep multiple copies of libavcodec? > > This is several orders of magnitude worse. > > Why is it worse? Disk space is very cheap, and the libs aren't that big > after all. But I know, you distro folks would rather waste a lot of > time trying to make all projects use the same libs, instead of going > the easy way. Yes, we do. Once the initial porting work is done, we can fix security issues and other bugs in one place, by updating one package. That's a big maintenance win. However, at least in Fedora, if a project can't be ported to current library APIs (for example because it's dead) then we either drop it or introduce a compat package with an older version of the library. There is strong preference for the first option though. > By the way, why the hell do I have to have two versions of Qt and 2 > versions of Python on my Debian system? These are much heavier than > libav*. You're right, but there are also much more users of Qt and Python and there are (I think) much more extensive API changes between Qt 4 and 5, and between python-2.x and 3.x. They were also designed as parallel installable from the beginning. Regards, Dominik (FFmpeg (co-)maintainer in RPMFusion/Fedora) -- MPlayer http://mplayerhq.hu | RPM Fusion http://rpmfusion.org There should be a science of discontent. People need hard times and oppression to develop psychic muscles. -- from "Collected Sayings of Muad'Dib" by the Princess Irulan _______________________________________________ ffmpeg-devel mailing list ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org http://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-devel
