Hi there. On Wed, Sep 25, 2013 at 10:33 AM, Jonas Smedegaard <d...@jones.dk> wrote: > (please mention if you are not subscribed to the list and need copy of > replies - normal for Debian lists is to post only to list)
While I am subscribed to the list, I would appreciate it if I received a copy at rbrito at ime.usp.br. > Quoting Romain Bouqueau (2013-09-25 14:23:46) >> We would need you to provide both FFmpeg and libav as separate >> packages in Debian. However the libraries/headers in the packages have >> the same names. AFAIU this makes our request impossible to fulfill. > > Not impossible, but very difficult: Those actually doing the work in > Debian consider it too much work for too little gain. I support having ffmpeg in Debian. We have packages use it (e.g., XBMC). Also, chromium embeds a copy of ffmpeg, which is not good. >> However FFmpeg works better: it is more stable, the maintainers are >> more reactive, the APIs are more stable and consistent. > > Above seems subjective. It will help the discussion tremendously if is > supported by some factual non-biased comparison. I have taken the time to look at the commits some months ago. ffmpeg received support for video stabilization via libvidstab (which transcode has embedded, but transcode has some very serious limitations), which libav didn't, ffmpeg had support for OpenCL, which libav didn't, essentially, and ffmpeg had *many* features more, which I needed, but which libav lacked. Also, essentially all (perhaps even all?) commits from libav were imported into ffmpeg, but the converse is not true (see my coments above). Also, the upstream ffmpeg developers are highly annoyed with the message that Debian's and Ubuntu's ffmpeg program emits: | *** THIS PROGRAM IS DEPRECATED *** | This program is only provided for compatibility and will be removed in a future release. Please use avconv instead. I understand their position and the wording is harming to their project: the ffmpeg program that Debian *packages* may be deprecated, but the context that this is a Debian decision is not clear and many users understand, essentially, in absolute terms that ffmpeg is something that they should not use (even if ffmpeg's upstream is active). I sincerely think that this message should be reworded. (N.B.: I am not affiliated with anybody, I just heard what an ffmpeg developer had to say and I totally understand their position). >> This fork causes duplicated work (VLC, MPlayer, GStreamer, GPAC). I >> think it would be a good idea not to involve project contributors in >> this ego war and let them choose whichever is best for their projects. > > Above is judgemental. Please avoid that to keep discussion productive. Gee, I had some pain, initially, to "port" handbrake to Debian's libav. I only persisted because I really wanted to have handbrake use my preferred distribution with as little duplication as possible and, then, share what I had (and have other people improve what I had at the point). >> Note that it was not an issue until the last year because they were >> still fairly compatible. The Debian package maintainers also seem to >> have kept this issue away by installing old libav versions. > > Above seems misguided. If you compare "released code" then beware that > what Debian calls "stable" others might call "too boring", and what > others call "stable Debian might call "testing" or "unstable". Even unstable has a libav that is behind ffmpeg in terms of functionality that the users (read: "me") may need. Regards, Rogério Brito. _______________________________________________ pkg-multimedia-maintainers mailing list pkg-multimedia-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pkg-multimedia-maintainers
