011 (helpful):
Bug#618899: libffms2-dev: Missing dependecies [1]
Aug 14 2011 (quite interesting):
Bug#637758: libmp4v2-dev: Should be architecture any and not all [2]
Nov 19 2010 (snide):
Bug#544062: ITP: xcfa -- X Convert File Audio [3]
Christian might be opinionated, but i
On Fri, Mar 16, 2012 at 5:06 PM, Reinhard Tartler wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 16, 2012 at 3:23 AM, Chris Knadle
> wrote:
>> On Monday, March 05, 2012 10:42:50, Reinhard Tartler wrote:
>> ...
>>> Friendly discussion with the maintainer of debian-multimedia.org to
>>> not replace libraries such as libavc
On Fri, Mar 16, 2012 at 3:23 AM, Chris Knadle wrote:
> On Monday, March 05, 2012 10:42:50, Reinhard Tartler wrote:
> ...
>> Friendly discussion with the maintainer of debian-multimedia.org to
>> not replace libraries such as libavcodec and friends have failed
>> ultimatively (BTW, that is part of
On Monday, March 05, 2012 10:42:50, Reinhard Tartler wrote:
...
> Friendly discussion with the maintainer of debian-multimedia.org to
> not replace libraries such as libavcodec and friends have failed
> ultimatively (BTW, that is part of the reason why we've ended up with
> an epoch of '4', dmo use
On Tue, Mar 13, 2012 at 10:57:19AM +0100, Gerfried Fuchs wrote:
> www.debian.net is currently an alias for www.debian.org - this needs to
> get entangled
Do you mean dis-entangled? (Otherwise agree!)
> and a page put there to tell people clearly that anything below debian.net is
> not an officia
* Stefano Zacchiroli [2012-03-13 09:47:43 CET]:
> Thus far, no objections have been raised on the above proposal. Also, it
> has been pointed out that past privacy concerns were related to the way
> in which the entries were published, rather than to the actual
> opportunity of doing so.
>
> Barr
On Mon, Mar 05, 2012 at 08:40:33AM +0100, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
> While we are at it, I also think we should provide an index of
> *.debian.net entries on that splash page.
> http://wiki.debian.org/DebianNetDomains is just too prone to outdateness
> and incompleteness. The index can be automati
[CC Eric - drop all other CCs]
On 12-03-11 at 03:54pm, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> On Sat, Mar 10, 2012 at 11:44:50AM +0100, Eric Valette wrote:
> > On 10/03/2012 11:14, Thomas Goirand wrote:
> > >Debian Squeeze has a very nice set of packages that will make a
> > >good fit for this platform. What d
On Sat, Mar 10, 2012 at 11:44:50AM +0100, Eric Valette wrote:
> On 10/03/2012 11:14, Thomas Goirand wrote:
> >Debian Squeeze has a very nice set of packages that will make
> >a good fit for this platform. What do you think will be lacking
> >exactly?
>
> XBMC, up to date ffmpeg at least with some
When exactly was vlc not up-to-date on Debian?
As long as it is unable to play dvd or various codec that are non
supported given the option for compiling libav for example
-- eric
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Co
OoO Pendant le temps de midi du samedi 10 mars 2012, vers 12:30, Eric
Valette disait :
> Yes acknowledged that vlc and mplayer are now up-to-date.
vlc 0.5.3 was released on April, 8 2003. Debian package on April, 14 2003.
vlc 0.8.6a was released on January, 4 2007. Debian package on January
Eric Valette writes:
> Thanks for not copying me. Afraid I was going to answer?
This mailing list, like all sensibly-run mailing lists, does not munge
the ‘Reply-To’ field. If you have a conversation in a public forum, the
onus is on you to participate in the discussion in that public forum.
>
On 12-03-10 at 04:39pm, Eric Valette wrote:
> >> take a look at yavdr, openelec, geexbox, ubuntu studio and the
> >> packages they provide
> >>
> >>
> >> Readhttp://thelinuxcauldron.wordpress.com/2009/04/14/the-list-the-top-5-media-center-programs-for-linux/
> >> and see the one you have.
> >
> take a look at yavdr, openelec, geexbox, ubuntu studio and the
> packages they provide
>
>
Readhttp://thelinuxcauldron.wordpress.com/2009/04/14/the-list-the-top-5-media-center-programs-for-linux/
> and see the one you have.
Ahh, so your definition of "serious multimedia" is "media centers"
On 12-03-10 at 01:34pm, Eric Valette wrote:
> On 10/03/2012 12:40, Philip Hands wrote:
>
> >Really?
>
> Again, vlc or mplayer do not make a multi-media capable distribution.
>
> take a look at yavdr, openelec, geexbox, ubuntu studio and the
> packages they provide
>
> Read
> http://thelinuxca
On 12-03-10 at 12:30pm, Eric Valette wrote:
> Yes acknowledged that vlc and mplayer are now up-to-date.
>
> Libav vs ffmpeg could be per se part of the debate. We could also
> speak about compilation options and induced feature/codec support
>
> what about xbmc, mythv, tvheadend, avidemux?
Well
On 10/03/2012 12:40, Philip Hands wrote:
Really?
Again, vlc or mplayer do not make a multi-media capable distribution.
take a look at yavdr, openelec, geexbox, ubuntu studio and the packages
they provide
Read
http://thelinuxcauldron.wordpress.com/2009/04/14/the-list-the-top-5-media-center
On Sat, 10 Mar 2012 11:44:50 +0100, Eric Valette wrote:
> On 10/03/2012 11:14, Thomas Goirand wrote:
>
> > In where? Stable? SID? Backports? FYI, you can check all
> > of this easily by yourself using packages.debian.org. Or
> > are you trying to make the point that Debian has outdated
> > packag
Yes acknowledged that vlc and mplayer are now up-to-date.
Libav vs ffmpeg could be per se part of the debate. We could also speak
about compilation options and induced feature/codec support
what about xbmc, mythv, tvheadend, avidemux?
-- eric
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ..
On 10/03/2012 12:03, Eric Valette wrote:
On 10/03/2012 11:44, Eric Valette wrote:
I know the version already yes. And yes debian is completely outdated.
To be fair, but catching up at least for vlc, mplayer...
Still no xbmc, handbrake, libdvbcsa tough and quite old ffmpeg
mythtv, tvheadend
On 10/03/2012 11:44, Eric Valette wrote:
I know the version already yes. And yes debian is completely outdated.
To be fair, but catching up at least for vlc, mplayer...
Still no xbmc, handbrake, libdvbcsa tough and quite old ffmpeg
-- eric
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...
On Sat, 2012-03-10 at 11:44 +0100, Eric Valette wrote:
> I ask you a question: what are the version of the packeges in debian
> unstable and in debian-multimedia.org trying to be factual. I know the
> answer, I just would like someone from debian to write it down ;-)
>
> I know the version alrea
On 10/03/2012 11:14, Thomas Goirand wrote:
In where? Stable? SID? Backports? FYI, you can check all
of this easily by yourself using packages.debian.org. Or
are you trying to make the point that Debian has outdated
packages?
I ask you a question: what are the version of the packeges in debian
On 03/10/2012 05:07 PM, Eric Valette wrote:
> The problem is that debian per se
> 1) is unusable for any serious multimedia usage.
1/ I don't agree.
2/ Please define "serious".
> what are the version of VLC, ffmpeg, xbmc provided by debian?
In where? Stable? SID? Backports? FYI, you can chec
While debian-multimedia.org has gained a reputation of providing
packages, which were desperately lacking in Debian,
IMO this repository has turned into a major source of trouble and
pissed users provoking flamewars in the recent past. There is still a
number of remaining multimedia-related packag
On 2012-03-08 12:35:53 +, Philipp Kern wrote:
> On 2012-03-08, Vincent Lefevre wrote:
> > It's worse than that. Security support is non-existent, and users
> > don't know that. An example: [… non-free package …]
>
> Well, non-free in Debian proper doesn't have security support neither. But
>
On 2012-03-08, Vincent Lefevre wrote:
> It's worse than that. Security support is non-existent, and users
> don't know that. An example: [… non-free package …]
Well, non-free in Debian proper doesn't have security support neither. But
then I guess one could argue that users at least know that th
On 2012-03-05 16:42:50 +0100, Reinhard Tartler wrote:
> Friendly discussion with the maintainer of debian-multimedia.org to
> not replace libraries such as libavcodec and friends have failed
> ultimatively (BTW, that is part of the reason why we've ended up with
> an epoch of '4', dmo uses epoch '5
On Wed, 2012-03-07 at 10:35 +1100, Karl Goetz wrote:
> On Mon, 5 Mar 2012 22:19:09 +0100
> Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
>
> > On Mon, Mar 05, 2012 at 08:09:47PM +, Philipp Kern wrote:
> > > The reason being what? We have ZIP password crackers in the
> > > archive, too.
> >
> > Cracking ZIP pas
On Mon, 5 Mar 2012 22:19:09 +0100
Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 05, 2012 at 08:09:47PM +, Philipp Kern wrote:
> > The reason being what? We have ZIP password crackers in the
> > archive, too.
>
> Cracking ZIP passwords doesn't fall under the auspices of DMCA or your
> equivalent $
Hey.
Stupid question... but even for those packages, which Debian provides
now itself (by the fine work of the pkg-multimedia-maintainers)... are
they build with all the options enabled?
I believe to remember that there were some cases where mp4 stuff was
disabled then...
I surely haven't had t
On 12-03-06 at 11:24am, Vincent Danjean wrote:
> Le 06/03/2012 01:56, Jonas Smedegaard a écrit :
> > Debian now has a *changed* hard line against patent infringing
> > software - resulting in more codecs supported in official Debian
> > packages.
>
> Perhaps, it is time to look at each package i
On Di, 06 Mär 2012, Andreas Tille wrote:
> I wonder what criterion of serios bug would apply here. Just for the
> sake of interest because I do not intend to implement this personally.
Too lazy to search for it, but overriding a configuration of a
system admin is for sure not allowed. If it would
Le 06/03/2012 01:56, Jonas Smedegaard a écrit :
> Debian now has a *changed* hard line against patent infringing software
> - resulting in more codecs supported in official Debian packages.
Perhaps, it is time to look at each package in d-m.o and list all
that are now equals (or better ?) in term
On Tue, Mar 6, 2012 at 5:43 PM, Thomas Goirand wrote:
> It's not *always* published.
> Try with ipv6 or mozilla.debian.net for example.
>
> Making this as a rule seems relevant and a good idea to me.
> It'd be even better if we could publish a list instead of only
> an individual if we want to (bu
On 03/06/2012 03:55 PM, Paul Wise wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 6, 2012 at 3:44 PM, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
>
>
>> Now, is anyone against publishing the list of debian.net entries and the
>> entry <-> registrant association (provided the above conditions are
>> met)?
>>
> That is already published
On Tue, Mar 06, 2012 at 10:23:33AM +0900, Norbert Preining wrote:
> On Di, 06 Mär 2012, Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
> > > the Blends framework. I would most probably drop some file
> > >
> > >/etc/apt/preferences.d/01-disable-dmo.pref
> > >
> > > in multimedia-config metapackage (where all other
On Tue, Mar 6, 2012 at 3:44 PM, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
> Now, is anyone against publishing the list of debian.net entries and the
> entry <-> registrant association (provided the above conditions are
> met)?
That is already published in DNS:
pabs@chianamo ~ $ dig -t txt mentors.debian.net | g
On Tue, Mar 06, 2012 at 12:30:02AM +0100, Carsten Hey wrote:
> In a non-public mail, Rhonda explained an argument against publishing
> such automatically generated lists. A short summary is:
> An other argument against publishing the list is that this information
> used to be non-public. Publish
On Tue, Mar 6, 2012 at 12:45 PM, Miles Bader wrote:
> Er ... MP3 encoding ?
>
> [Is that available in debian-official now?]
lame is in squeeze-backports and later:
http://packages.debian.org/lame
--
bye,
pabs
http://wiki.debian.org/PaulWise
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@
On Tue, Mar 6, 2012 at 1:13 AM, Andres Mejia wrote:
> MDL should be supported by libmodplug, which gstreamer uses.
The symptoms I am seeing are that Rhythmbox says "The MIME type of the
file could not be identified". I guess I need to file a bug against
file since file --mime-type returns applica
Reinhard Tartler writes:
> On Mon, Mar 5, 2012 at 11:52 AM, Milan P. Stanic wrote:
>> For me d-m.o was (and still is) valuable resource.
>> Some codecs missing in Debian packages because of the policy (I don't
>> blame Debian for that) and in that case d-m.o is best option for me
>> because I don
On Di, 06 Mär 2012, Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
> > the Blends framework. I would most probably drop some file
> >
> >/etc/apt/preferences.d/01-disable-dmo.pref
> >
> > in multimedia-config metapackage (where all other metapackages usually
And I would file a serious bug against that. There is
On 12-03-06 at 11:33am, Russell Coker wrote:
> On Tue, 6 Mar 2012, Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
> > > In other words, if not for Christian Marillat's work, your
> > > customer would either be unable to do this on Debian, or, assuming
> > > enough technical knowledge, have to beat upstream packages in
On Tue, 6 Mar 2012, Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
> > In other words, if not for Christian Marillat's work, your customer
> > would either be unable to do this on Debian, or, assuming enough
> > technical knowledge, have to beat upstream packages into working.
>
> ...or use another source which plays
On 12-03-05 at 11:04pm, Andreas Tille wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 05, 2012 at 04:42:50PM +0100, Reinhard Tartler wrote:
> > In summary, I can only advise everyone against enabling that
> > repository on any machine.
>
> If I would have time to become a pkg-multimedia member I would try to
> establish i
* Stefano Zacchiroli [2012-03-05 08:40 +0100]:
> On Sun, Mar 04, 2012 at 10:59:39PM +, Ben Hutchings wrote:
> While we are at it, I also think we should provide an index of
> *.debian.net entries on that splash page.
> http://wiki.debian.org/DebianNetDomains is just too prone to outdateness
> a
On Mon, Mar 05, 2012 at 04:42:50PM +0100, Reinhard Tartler wrote:
> In summary, I can only advise everyone against enabling that
> repository on any machine.
If I would have time to become a pkg-multimedia member I would try to
establish installing multimedia applications via metapackages build be
On Mon, Mar 05, 2012 at 08:09:47PM +, Philipp Kern wrote:
> The reason being what? We have ZIP password crackers in the archive,
> too.
Cracking ZIP passwords doesn't fall under the auspices of DMCA or your
equivalent $county_specific_law (and there are quite a few around the
world, unfortuna
On Mon, Mar 5, 2012 at 11:55 AM, Reinhard Tartler wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 5, 2012 at 6:32 PM, Matt Zagrabelny wrote:
>> On Mon, Mar 5, 2012 at 9:45 AM, Reinhard Tartler wrote:
>>> On Mon, Mar 5, 2012 at 11:52 AM, Milan P. Stanic wrote:
For me d-m.o was (and still is) valuable resource.
S
On 2012-03-05, Reinhard Tartler wrote:
> This is not a codec but a software package that cracks an encryption
> algorithm. It has been packaged for debian proper, uploaded and got
> rejected by ftp-master. BTW, the reason did not involve patents,
> AFAIUI.
The reason being what? We have ZIP pass
Reinhard Tartler writes:
> the libdvdread maintainer removed that really handy script.
Not really related but it did have a security issue:
http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=554772
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe"
On Mon, Mar 5, 2012 at 6:32 PM, Matt Zagrabelny wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 5, 2012 at 9:45 AM, Reinhard Tartler wrote:
>> On Mon, Mar 5, 2012 at 11:52 AM, Milan P. Stanic wrote:
>>> For me d-m.o was (and still is) valuable resource.
>>> Some codecs missing in Debian packages because of the policy (I d
On Mon, Mar 5, 2012 at 9:45 AM, Reinhard Tartler wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 5, 2012 at 11:52 AM, Milan P. Stanic wrote:
>> For me d-m.o was (and still is) valuable resource.
>> Some codecs missing in Debian packages because of the policy (I don't
>> blame Debian for that) and in that case d-m.o is best
On Mar 5, 2012 11:00 AM, "Paul Wise" wrote:
>
> On Mon, Mar 5, 2012 at 11:45 PM, Reinhard Tartler wrote:
>
> > Out of curiousity, what codecs do you miss in the official debian
packages?
>
> The Voxware decoder is the one codec I've encountered that doesn't
> work in Debian. AFAICT there is no fre
On Mon, 2012-03-05 at 16:45, Reinhard Tartler wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 5, 2012 at 11:52 AM, Milan P. Stanic wrote:
> > For me d-m.o was (and still is) valuable resource.
> > Some codecs missing in Debian packages because of the policy (I don't
> > blame Debian for that) and in that case d-m.o is best
On 12-03-05 at 04:32pm, Adam Borowski wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 05, 2012 at 09:49:18PM +0800, Thomas Goirand wrote:
> > On 03/05/2012 08:51 PM, Salvo Tomaselli wrote:
> > >> But I've seen multiple instances of this issue over the years, on
> > >> both desktop and server side.
> > >>
> > > You added deb
On Mon, Mar 5, 2012 at 11:45 PM, Reinhard Tartler wrote:
> Out of curiousity, what codecs do you miss in the official debian packages?
The Voxware decoder is the one codec I've encountered that doesn't
work in Debian. AFAICT there is no free decoder for it and the Windows
DLL from w32-codecs is n
On Mon, Mar 5, 2012 at 11:52 AM, Milan P. Stanic wrote:
> For me d-m.o was (and still is) valuable resource.
> Some codecs missing in Debian packages because of the policy (I don't
> blame Debian for that) and in that case d-m.o is best option for me
> because I don't want/have time to package it
On Mon, Mar 5, 2012 at 9:29 AM, Thijs Kinkhorst wrote:
>> But before getting there, the question is whether the existence of the
>> website (and its popularity) poses problem to Debian reputation and/or
>> to the activity of official Debian multimedia packaging. I think this is
>> a question for
On Mon, Mar 05, 2012 at 09:49:18PM +0800, Thomas Goirand wrote:
> On 03/05/2012 08:51 PM, Salvo Tomaselli wrote:
> >> But I've seen multiple instances of this issue over the years, on both
> >> desktop and server side.
> >>
> > You added debian-multimedia in a server system? If i were you i would s
On Mon, Mar 05, 2012 at 03:32:23PM +0100, Arno Töll wrote:
> I noted. That said, people still take debian.net domains in general
> and mentors.d.n in particular as an example how people (ab-)use Debian
> trademarks among different non-affiliated projects despite of being
> entirely orthogonal targe
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Hi,
On 05.03.2012 15:17, Fernando Lemos wrote:
> Please note nobody is comparing m.d.n to d.m.o. There are two
> discussions going on in this thread.
I noted. That said, people still take debian.net domains in general
and mentors.d.n in particular a
On Mon, Mar 5, 2012 at 11:09 AM, Arno Töll wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> Hi,
>
> On 05.03.2012 14:31, Fernando Lemos wrote:
>> I believe people don't go to http://www.debian.net/ often, as it
>> redirects to http://www.debian.org/. If we come up with a splash
>> for
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Hi,
On 05.03.2012 14:31, Fernando Lemos wrote:
> I believe people don't go to http://www.debian.net/ often, as it
> redirects to http://www.debian.org/. If we come up with a splash
> for debian.net, people that visit mentors.debian.net, for example,
On 03/05/2012 08:51 PM, Salvo Tomaselli wrote:
>> But I've seen multiple instances of this issue over the years, on both
>> desktop and server side.
>>
> You added debian-multimedia in a server system? If i were you i would start
> by
> blaming myself for the problems.
>
Not me, my custo
On 03/05/2012 06:52 PM, Milan P. Stanic wrote:
> I don't agree with you here.
> For me d-m.o was (and still is) valuable resource.
> Some codecs missing in Debian packages because of the policy (I don't
> blame Debian for that) and in that case d-m.o is best option for me
> because I don't want/hav
On 03/05/2012 06:26 PM, Florian Reitmeir wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Thomas Goirand wrote:
>> On 03/05/2012 03:40 PM, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
>>> But before getting there, the question is whether the existence of the
>>> website (and its popularity) poses problem to Debian reputation and/or
>>> to the activ
On Mon, Mar 5, 2012 at 4:40 AM, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
> What we need, though, is probably to make it more clear to our users
> what is the difference among *.debian.net and *.debian.org services. It
> is something that developers know by folklore, but that I seriously
> doubt most of our users
> I do think this website hurts Debian, and its user community.
> Let me explain, it's based on my past *user* experience.
> But I've seen multiple instances of this issue over the years, on both
> desktop and server side.
You added debian-multimedia in a server system? If i were you i would sta
On Mon, 2012-03-05 at 17:56, Thomas Goirand wrote:
> On 03/05/2012 03:40 PM, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
> > But before getting there, the question is whether the existence of the
> > website (and its popularity) poses problem to Debian reputation and/or
> > to the activity of official Debian multime
Florian Reitmeir writes:
> to expect that any third-party package archive is "stable" enough to
> survive an debian dist-upgrade is just brave.
It can be done, though, and it should be the norm. That it is not so,
that's unfortunate, and something we (both the Debian maintainers and
the third-pa
Hi,
Thomas Goirand wrote:
On 03/05/2012 03:40 PM, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
But before getting there, the question is whether the existence of the
website (and its popularity) poses problem to Debian reputation and/or
to the activity of official Debian multimedia packaging. I think this is
a qu
On 03/05/2012 03:40 PM, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
> But before getting there, the question is whether the existence of the
> website (and its popularity) poses problem to Debian reputation and/or
> to the activity of official Debian multimedia packaging. I think this is
> a question for the Debian
2012/3/5 Stefano Zacchiroli :
> What we need, though, is probably to make it more clear to our users
> what is the difference among *.debian.net and *.debian.org services. It
> is something that developers know by folklore, but that I seriously
> doubt most of our users know. For me, the most appro
On Mon, March 5, 2012 08:40, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
> On Sun, Mar 04, 2012 at 10:59:39PM +, Ben Hutchings wrote:
>> Looking at the front page of http://www.debian-multimedia.org/ today,
>> I don't see a clear statement that it is unofficial.
> I also find disturbing that the website seeks f
On Sun, Mar 04, 2012 at 10:59:39PM +, Ben Hutchings wrote:
> Looking at the front page of http://www.debian-multimedia.org/ today,
> I don't see a clear statement that it is unofficial.
Agreed.
I also find disturbing that the website seeks for donations without
making clear that donated money
Ben Hutchings writes:
> Looking at the front page of http://www.debian-multimedia.org/ today, I
> don't see a clear statement that it is unofficial.
There are a ton of hints, nevertheless. I'd like to think that someone
who's adding sources.list entries to his config will spend a moment or
two a
On Sun, 2012-03-04 at 23:27 +0100, Gergely Nagy wrote:
> Sergio Cipolla writes:
>
> > I'm not sure if you're a Debian Maintainer or not (or worse, Debian
> > Developer) but this kind of big mouthing shouldn't be accepted from a
> > DM/DD.
>
> I don't see a problem. Someone has a strong opinon, a
79 matches
Mail list logo
