On Fri, Aug 29, 2014 at 1:17 PM, Michael Niedermayer wrote:
> also please dont remove ffmpeg-devel from the CC
> I had missed that you removed it so my reply went just to debian-devel
> full quote left below for ffmpeg-devel, no further inline comments
Sorry about that. Last time I tried having a
Hey.
On 12/08/2014 18:30, Michael Niedermayer wrote:
> Also ive offered my resignation in the past. I do still offer to
> resign from the FFmpeg leader position, if it resolves this split
> between FFmpeg and Libav and make everyone work together again.
I have absolutely no opinion on the poli
Hi Vittorio
also please dont remove ffmpeg-devel from the CC
I had missed that you removed it so my reply went just to debian-devel
full quote left below for ffmpeg-devel, no further inline comments
below
Thanks
On Fri, Aug 29, 2014 at 07:17:55PM +0200, Michael Niedermayer wrote:
> Hi Vittorio
Hi Vittorio
On Thu, Aug 28, 2014 at 12:45:42AM -0400, Vittorio Giovara wrote:
> On 12/08/2014 18:30, Michael Niedermayer wrote:
> >Also ive offered my resignation in the past. I do still offer to
> >resign from the FFmpeg leader position, if it resolves this split
> >between FFmpeg and Libav and m
On Thu, 28 Aug 2014, Vittorio Giovara wrote:
> On 17/08/2014 18:15, Clément Bœsch wrote:
> > > - you leeching my work by leveraging git merge daily
> > Welcome to the wonderful world of Open Source Luca.
> Sorry but no, definitely no.
>
> While technically what ffmpeg does is allowed by the (L)GP
On 17/08/2014 18:15, Clément Bœsch wrote:
- you leeching my work by leveraging git merge daily
Welcome to the wonderful world of Open Source Luca.
Sorry but no, definitely no.
While technically what ffmpeg does is allowed by the (L)GPL, it
fundamentally goes against the spirit of Open Source
On 12/08/2014 18:30, Michael Niedermayer wrote:
Also ive offered my resignation in the past. I do still offer to
resign from the FFmpeg leader position, if it resolves this split
between FFmpeg and Libav and make everyone work together again.
Hi Michael,
sorry to come late to the party, but I j
Hi
On Thu, Aug 21, 2014 at 03:16:50AM +0200, Attila Kinali wrote:
> Servus,
>
> On Wed, 20 Aug 2014 18:43:18 +0900
> Norbert Preining wrote:
>
> > By continuing old fights, inspite of the very clearly friendly and
> > open offers and suggestions byu Michael, you and others from AV continue
> >
Hi,
On 17.08.2014 00:49, Andreas Cadhalpun wrote:
I have now sent the pkg-config patches to the BTS [1].
I have found a simpler way to make it possible to link packages not
using pkg-config against FFmpeg in Debian:
The lib*-ffmpeg-dev packages now install symbolic links from the
standard li
Servus,
On Wed, 20 Aug 2014 18:43:18 +0900
Norbert Preining wrote:
> By continuing old fights, inspite of the very clearly friendly and
> open offers and suggestions byu Michael, you and others from AV continue
> simply to insult and be nasty.
Sorry, but this is not true. Yes, Michael always of
Norbert,
On Wed, Aug 20, 2014, at 11:43, Norbert Preining wrote:
[...]
> The base line of this discussion for me is:
[...]
> * from my point of view, it would be best to throw out Av immediately
> and switch to ffmpeg before release.
It would be great if you didn't send your personal judgements
On Sun, 17 Aug 2014, Luca Barbato wrote:
> - you tried to commit code that was blatantly below the already lax
> quality requirements (e.g. it contained tabs, it was (and still is) hard
> to read, it contains dubious, aka security-concerning, practices), I
> told you not to commit those as-is and y
On Mon, Aug 18, 2014 at 12:15:10AM +0200, Clément Bœsch wrote:
> On Sun, Aug 17, 2014 at 09:14:47PM +0200, Luca Barbato wrote:
> [...]
> > > Ive asked [1][2] back then what "policy in place" was broken
> >
> > - you tried to commit code that was blatantly below the already lax
> > quality requirem
On 8/18/14, Moritz Mühlenhoff wrote:
> Andreas Cadhalpun schrieb:
>> Hi Thomas,
>>
>> On 18.08.2014 08:36, Thomas Goirand wrote:
>>> There's been a very well commented technical reason stated here: the
>>> release team don't want to deal with 2 of the same library that are
>>> doing (nearly) the
Hi Moritz,
On 18.08.2014 14:05, Moritz Mühlenhoff wrote:
Andreas Cadhalpun schrieb:
On 18.08.2014 08:36, Thomas Goirand wrote:
There's been a very well commented technical reason stated here: the
release team don't want to deal with 2 of the same library that are
doing (nearly) the same thing
Andreas Cadhalpun schrieb:
> Hi Thomas,
>
> On 18.08.2014 08:36, Thomas Goirand wrote:
>> There's been a very well commented technical reason stated here: the
>> release team don't want to deal with 2 of the same library that are
>> doing (nearly) the same things, with potentially the same securit
On Sun, Aug 17, 2014 at 09:14:47PM +0200, Luca Barbato wrote:
[...]
> > Ive asked [1][2] back then what "policy in place" was broken
>
> - you tried to commit code that was blatantly below the already lax
> quality requirements (e.g. it contained tabs, it was (and still is) hard
> to read, it cont
On 17/08/14 10:28, Michael Niedermayer wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 15, 2014 at 01:19:38AM +0200, Luca Barbato wrote:
>> Stefano Sabatini wrote:
> [...]
>>
>> The list is quite long and debunking each of the statements could take a
>> lot of time.
>>
>> I'm going to address two historical "misrepresentatio
On Fri, Aug 15, 2014 at 01:19:38AM +0200, Luca Barbato wrote:
> Stefano Sabatini wrote:
[...]
>
> The list is quite long and debunking each of the statements could take a
> lot of time.
>
> I'm going to address two historical "misrepresentations":
>
> # The change of management
>
> Michael Nied
Stefano Sabatini wrote:
> Please refrain from claiming other people are spreading lies,
> especially with no specific references (and this is not the place
> where to discuss such things).
Attila already amended one of the false statement that had been spun
around (about the people behind Libav "s
user debian-le...@lists.debian.org
usertags 729203 one-copyright-review
thanks
Le Fri, Aug 08, 2014 at 01:53:15AM +0200, Andreas Cadhalpun a écrit :
>
> Now, could anyone review the debian/copyright file of ffmpeg?
> The sources are available in this repository:
> https://anonscm.debian.org/cgit/
user debian-le...@lists.debian.org
usertags 729203 copyright-review-requested
thanks
Hi Charles,
On 06.08.2014 13:55, Charles Plessy wrote:
A few years ago, I made a proposal for peer-reviewing copyright files in the
NEW queue.
https://wiki.debian.org/CopyrightReview
The goal is not to s
Le Wed, Aug 06, 2014 at 01:28:02PM +0200, Thorsten Alteholz a écrit :
>
> On Tue, 5 Aug 2014, Michael Gilbert wrote:
> >The problem is an undermanned ftpmaster team [0], so help there is
>
> I have to object here. If I read something like:
>please reject YYY
>forgot to add the full MPL 2.
On Tue, 5 Aug 2014, Michael Gilbert wrote:
The problem is an undermanned ftpmaster team [0], so help there is
I have to object here. If I read something like:
please reject YYY
forgot to add the full MPL 2.0 text..
I wonder why this hadn't been checked before the upload.
If all maintaine
On Tue, Aug 5, 2014 at 11:45 AM, Wookey wrote:
> I really don't see sufficient reasons why we shouldn't at least put it
> experimental so that maintainers can easily test this stuff.
The problem is an undermanned ftpmaster team [0], so help there is
probably appreciated and the obvious way to brin
+++ Andreas Cadhalpun [2014-07-28 01:20 +0200]:
> Hi all,
>
> some of you may have noticed a weird ffmpeg package in the NEW queue[1].
> Let me explain:
> * Ok, let's say I'm a multimedia maintainer and want to try out
>building my package against your ffmpeg, what should I do?
>
> Any main
On 28/07/14, 01:20am, Andreas Cadhalpun wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> some of you may have noticed a weird ffmpeg package in the NEW queue[1].
> Let me explain:
>
> In 2011 Libav[2] was forked from FFmpeg[3]. It was a time of great
> uncertainty, the fork happened with much drama that didn't help making a
27 matches
Mail list logo
