On gio, apr 30, 2015 at 12:05:23 +0200, Alessandro Ghedini wrote: > On Thu, Apr 30, 2015 at 11:30:08AM +0200, Jonas Smedegaard wrote: > > Quoting Alessandro Ghedini (2015-04-30 11:19:39) > > > While the work done by Reinard (and others) maintaining the libav > > > package is outstanding and very appreciated, it just seems to make > > > more sense to go with ffmpeg. So I vote ffmpeg too. > > > > In what way do you find the work outstanding if essentially unusable? > > > > (not a trick question - I honestly try to understand this) > > Not unusable, it's just that ffmpeg seems to be better (see below). > > Anyway, the libav package is a really complicated one: the upstream project > has > tons of different options and optimizations that need to be handled > differently > on different architectures, the Debian package has many reverse dependencies > that make testing migrations difficult and time-consuming (it doesn't help > that > libav upstream broke API compatibility so many times), and all bug reports > that > I've either reported or seen have been handled in a responsive and helpful way > by Reinard.
I've just realized that I've been misspelling his name all this time... sorry. Cheers
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
_______________________________________________ pkg-multimedia-maintainers mailing list pkg-multimedia-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pkg-multimedia-maintainers
