Debian Bug report logs - #729203

ITP: ffmpeg -- complete, cross-platform solution to record, convert and stream audio and video

Package: wnpp; Maintainer for wnpp is wnpp@debian.org;

Reported by: Rogério Brito <rbrito@ime.usp.br> Date: Sun, 10 Nov 2013 05:54:02 UTC Owned by: Andreas Cadhalpun <andreas.cadhalpun@googlemail.com> Severity: wishlist Fixed in version ffmpeg/7:2.4-1 Done: Andreas Cadhalpun <Andreas.Cadhalpun@googlemail.com> Bug is archived. No further changes may be made.

Toggle useless messages

Report forwarded to debian-bugs-dist@lists.debian.org, ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org, michaelni@gmx.at, u@pkh.me, ubitux@gmail.com, mpv-team@googlegroups.com, pkg-multimedia-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org, wnpp@debian.org :

Bug#729203 ; Package wnpp . (Sun, 10 Nov 2013 05:54:06 GMT) (full text, mbox, link).

Acknowledgement sent to Rogério Brito <rbrito@ime.usp.br> :

New Bug report received and forwarded. Copy sent to ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org, michaelni@gmx.at, u@pkh.me, ubitux@gmail.com, mpv-team@googlegroups.com, pkg-multimedia-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org, wnpp@debian.org . (Sun, 10 Nov 2013 05:54:06 GMT) (full text, mbox, link).

Message #5 received at submit@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Rogério Brito <rbrito@ime.usp.br> To: submit@bugs.debian.org Subject: RFP: ffmpeg -- complete, cross-platform solution to record, convert and stream audio and video Date: Sun, 10 Nov 2013 02:40:27 -0200

Package: wnpp Severity: wishlist Hi. As I anticipate a lot of discussion and bikeshedding on this bug report, I am going to preface it with some information. I am including some people that may be interested parties in the CC'ies. Motivated by Debian's bug #729147 being closed, by the fact that some software either needs or recommends ffmpeg (see below), I think that Debian should provide the *option* of using ffmpeg instead of libav to its users. ffmpeg has many features that libav lacks and it is, as I understand it, the set of ffmpeg's features are a strict superset of that of libav's. When I read that libav was going to be forked, I thought that, given the non-explicit reports on what happened at the time, it was a good thing. A few years later, I think that I was wrong and libav doesn't suit me as both a user and a package of other programs. Just off the top of my head, here are some packages that either depend on or recommend ffmpeg (sometimes, embedding their own copy of ffmpeg): * mpv: https://github.com/mpv-player/mpv/wiki/FFmpeg-versus-Libav#situation-today * xbmc: http://xbmc.org/xbmc-13-gotham-april-and-may-cycles/ * mythtv: https://github.com/MythTV/mythtv/tree/master/mythtv/external * chromium: http://packages.debian.org/search?searchon=contents&keywords=libffmpegsumo.so You can see a reply to Josh Triplett at http://bugs.debian.org/721317#18 pointing out some extra arguments. This bug, in fact, is more of an Intent to Package than a Request for Package, but I will leave it as a RFP because I don't really know if I will have the enthusiasm to sustain the packaging during long times. What I *do* know is that, whenever I hit a limitation with libav, that enthusiasm all of a sudden comes back. I don't want any flamewar or anything. I just want to use my computer to do things that it currently doesn't. So, without further ado, here goes the skeleton of the RFP/ITP: ---- * Package name : ffmpeg Version : 2.1 Upstream Author : Name <somebody@example.org> * URL : http://ffmpeg.org/ * License : GPL, LGPL Programming Lang: C Description : complete, cross-platform solution to record, convert and stream audio and video -- Rogério Brito : rbrito@{ime.usp.br,gmail.com} : GPG key 4096R/BCFCAAAA http://rb.doesntexist.org/blog : Projects : https://github.com/rbrito/ DebianQA: http://qa.debian.org/developer.php?login=rbrito%40ime.usp.br

Information forwarded to debian-bugs-dist@lists.debian.org, wnpp@debian.org :

Bug#729203 ; Package wnpp . (Sun, 17 Nov 2013 13:45:10 GMT) (full text, mbox, link).

Acknowledgement sent to David Favor <david@davidfavor.com> :

Extra info received and forwarded to list. Copy sent to wnpp@debian.org . (Sun, 17 Nov 2013 13:45:10 GMT) (full text, mbox, link).

Message #10 received at 729203@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: David Favor <david@davidfavor.com> To: 729203@bugs.debian.org Subject: Yes, Please include a *real* ffmpeg package Date: Sun, 17 Nov 2013 07:28:16 -0600

Most people have abandoned libav (like me) because of all the new development in ffmpeg. I build my own libx264 + ffmpeg every night. I've only had trouble with libav, either it does not support what I'm trying do to, creates poor quality output or runs 30-50% longer than ffmpeg (shown by time) for the exact same transcodes. Please, bring ffmpeg back. -- Love Living Well Doing What You Love? http://DavidFavor.com/books can help!

Information forwarded to debian-bugs-dist@lists.debian.org, wnpp@debian.org :

Bug#729203 ; Package wnpp . (Wed, 27 Nov 2013 03:39:04 GMT) (full text, mbox, link).

Acknowledgement sent to Wyatt Ward <legend5459@gmail.com> :

Extra info received and forwarded to list. Copy sent to wnpp@debian.org . (Wed, 27 Nov 2013 03:39:04 GMT) (full text, mbox, link).

Message #15 received at 729203@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Wyatt Ward <legend5459@gmail.com> To: 729203@bugs.debian.org Subject: I also want ffmpeg back in the package system. I support this. Date: Tue, 26 Nov 2013 22:35:44 -0500

I too compile a new version of ffmpeg and a ton of libraries through a shellscript every night. I use it regularly and cannot abide by the lower quality of the libav fork. I tried it for about five months, was constantly frustrated, and switched back to ffmpeg. Please make this a debian package again.

Information forwarded to debian-bugs-dist@lists.debian.org, wnpp@debian.org :

Bug#729203 ; Package wnpp . (Wed, 27 Nov 2013 23:15:10 GMT) (full text, mbox, link).

Acknowledgement sent to ½ð½ð³¯Ýx <www163qq1631638020@gmail.com> :

Extra info received and forwarded to list. Copy sent to wnpp@debian.org . (Wed, 27 Nov 2013 23:15:11 GMT) (full text, mbox, link).

Message #20 received at 729203@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: ½ð½ð³¯Ýx <www163qq1631638020@gmail.com> To: 729203@bugs.debian.org Date: Thu, 28 Nov 2013 07:12:54 +0800

Information forwarded to debian-bugs-dist@lists.debian.org, wnpp@debian.org :

Bug#729203 ; Package wnpp . (Thu, 28 Nov 2013 02:45:04 GMT) (full text, mbox, link).

Acknowledgement sent to Jackson Doak <noskcaj@ubuntu.com> :

Extra info received and forwarded to list. Copy sent to wnpp@debian.org . (Thu, 28 Nov 2013 02:45:04 GMT) (full text, mbox, link).

Message #25 received at 729203@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Jackson Doak <noskcaj@ubuntu.com> To: 729203@bugs.debian.org Date: Thu, 28 Nov 2013 13:41:25 +1100

If there's anything i can do to help, let me know. Could you put you work-in-progress stuff in a VCS so others can look?

Information forwarded to debian-bugs-dist@lists.debian.org, wnpp@debian.org :

Bug#729203 ; Package wnpp . (Sat, 30 Nov 2013 01:21:03 GMT) (full text, mbox, link).

Acknowledgement sent to Peter Ross <pross@xvid.org> :

Extra info received and forwarded to list. Copy sent to wnpp@debian.org . (Sat, 30 Nov 2013 01:21:03 GMT) (full text, mbox, link).

Message #30 received at 729203@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Peter Ross <pross@xvid.org> To: 729203@bugs.debian.org Subject: RFP: ffmpeg -- complete, cross-platform solution to record, convert and stream audio and video Date: Sat, 30 Nov 2013 11:50:42 +1100

I support this. Please bring 'apt-get install ffmpeg' back. (I manually build ffmpeg on all my boxes.) -- Peter (A907 E02F A6E5 0CD2 34CD 20D2 6760 79C5 AC40 DD6B)

Information forwarded to debian-bugs-dist@lists.debian.org, wnpp@debian.org :

Bug#729203 ; Package wnpp . (Sat, 30 Nov 2013 18:57:04 GMT) (full text, mbox, link).

Acknowledgement sent to eric.valette@free.fr :

Extra info received and forwarded to list. Copy sent to wnpp@debian.org . (Sat, 30 Nov 2013 18:57:05 GMT) (full text, mbox, link).

Message #35 received at 729203@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Eric Valette <eric.valette@free.fr> To: 729203@bugs.debian.org Subject: In the meantime you can use deb-multimedia packages Date: Sat, 30 Nov 2013 19:53:38 +0100

This is what I've been doing for years. -- eric

Information forwarded to debian-bugs-dist@lists.debian.org, wnpp@debian.org :

Bug#729203 ; Package wnpp . (Wed, 04 Dec 2013 14:57:10 GMT) (full text, mbox, link).

Acknowledgement sent to xiaohua zhou <wwdxh.zhou@gmail.com> :

Extra info received and forwarded to list. Copy sent to wnpp@debian.org . (Wed, 04 Dec 2013 14:57:10 GMT) (full text, mbox, link).

Message #40 received at 729203@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: xiaohua zhou <wwdxh.zhou@gmail.com> To: 729203@bugs.debian.org Subject: Re: Bug#729203: Info received () Date: Wed, 4 Dec 2013 22:54:28 +0800

在 2013-12-4 PM10:45，"Debian Bug Tracking System" <owner@bugs.debian.org>写道： > > Thank you for the additional information you have supplied regarding > this Bug report. > > This is an automatically generated reply to let you know your message > has been received. > > Your message is being forwarded to the package maintainers and other > interested parties for their attention; they will reply in due course. > > Your message has been sent to the package maintainer(s): > wnpp@debian.org > > If you wish to submit further information on this problem, please > send it to 729203@bugs.debian.org. > > Please do not send mail to owner@bugs.debian.org unless you wish > to report a problem with the Bug-tracking system. > > -- > 729203: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=729203 > Debian Bug Tracking System > Contact owner@bugs.debian.org with problems

Information forwarded to debian-bugs-dist@lists.debian.org, wnpp@debian.org :

Bug#729203 ; Package wnpp . (Mon, 09 Dec 2013 17:15:11 GMT) (full text, mbox, link).

Acknowledgement sent to thomas.schorpp@gmail.com :

Extra info received and forwarded to list. Copy sent to wnpp@debian.org . (Mon, 09 Dec 2013 17:15:11 GMT) (full text, mbox, link).

Message #45 received at 729203@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: thomas schorpp <thomas.schorpp@gmail.com> To: 729203@bugs.debian.org Subject: RFP: ffmpeg -- complete, cross-platform solution to record, convert and stream audio and video Date: Mon, 09 Dec 2013 18:10:31 +0100

I support the "RFP", too, reasons: http://git.mplayer2.org/ liked it, but idle for months now, same maintainer as libav. Have gone back to MPlayer1 (FFmpeg). https://git.libav.org/?p=libav.git&a=search&h=HEAD&st=grep&s=crystalhd, missing, http://git.videolan.org/?p=ffmpeg.git;a=history;f=libavcodec/crystalhd.c;h=12a8f8e02bc16bbe25783c0dcc1bb6f4bae7514b;hb=HEAD https://git.libav.org/?p=libav.git&a=search&h=HEAD&st=grep&s=stereo3d, to latest anaglyph tech e.g. converter missing, I don't want flickering and ghosting proprietary shutters, or pay 1500$, http://git.videolan.org/?p=ffmpeg.git;a=history;f=libavfilter/vf_stereo3d.c;h=2140120eba6ed82e01927acad74c5b95c5d2f519;hb=325f6e0a97c943807c665eb1d5c278f8d789156b y tom

Information forwarded to debian-bugs-dist@lists.debian.org, wnpp@debian.org :

Bug#729203 ; Package wnpp . (Wed, 11 Dec 2013 02:39:07 GMT) (full text, mbox, link).

Acknowledgement sent to Franz Schrober <franzschrober@yahoo.de> :

Extra info received and forwarded to list. Copy sent to wnpp@debian.org . (Wed, 11 Dec 2013 02:39:07 GMT) (full text, mbox, link).

Message #50 received at 729203@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Franz Schrober <franzschrober@yahoo.de> To: "720563@bugs.debian.org" <720563@bugs.debian.org>, "720563-subscribe@bugs.debian.org" <720563-subscribe@bugs.debian.org>, "729203@bugs.debian.org" <729203@bugs.debian.org>, "729203-subscribe@bugs.debian.org" <729203-subscribe@bugs.debian.org> Subject: Re: libav: Doesn't decode opus while opus support is compiled in? Date: Wed, 11 Dec 2013 02:33:18 +0000 (GMT)

> $ avprobe -codecs | grep Opus > avprobe version 9.8-6:9.8-2, Copyright (c) 2007-2013 the Libav developers > built on Aug 13 2013 21:50:46 with gcc 4.8 (Debian 4.8.1-8) > DEA.L. opus Opus (Opus Interactive Audio Codec) (decoders: libopus ) (encoders: libopus ) > $ avprobe somefile.opus > avprobe version 9.8-6:9.8-2, Copyright (c) 2007-2013 the Libav developers > built on Aug 13 2013 21:50:46 with gcc 4.8 (Debian 4.8.1-8) > [ogg @ 0xc40460] Codec not found > somefile.opus: End of file Really, this libav is a shame. This doesn't happen with the actual libav* from ffmpeg. Now I have a lot of tools in Debian which I need to use to get some work done... and they just fail again, again and again because libav. Can we really drop this buggy fork called 'libav' and go back to ffmpeg.. or at least allow users to switch to a working libav*? See also bug #729203

Information forwarded to debian-bugs-dist@lists.debian.org, wnpp@debian.org :

Bug#729203 ; Package wnpp . (Wed, 11 Dec 2013 09:57:04 GMT) (full text, mbox, link).

Acknowledgement sent to Pau Koning <paukoning@gmail.com> :

Extra info received and forwarded to list. Copy sent to wnpp@debian.org . (Wed, 11 Dec 2013 09:57:05 GMT) (full text, mbox, link).

Message #55 received at 729203@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Pau Koning <paukoning@gmail.com> To: 729203@bugs.debian.org Subject: Re: RFP: ffmpeg -- complete, cross-platform solution to record, convert and stream audio and video Date: Wed, 11 Dec 2013 10:55:44 +0100

Bug #731919 is another example why ffmpeg in Debian would be good. The Debian user should not be the damaged third party when there is a disagreement between upstream maintainer and Debian Developer/Maintainer. It is ok when the DD drops the package because of his personal problems but I would prefer to use the (for me and many other people) better package when another person is willing to maintain it.

Information forwarded to debian-bugs-dist@lists.debian.org, wnpp@debian.org :

Bug#729203 ; Package wnpp . (Mon, 16 Dec 2013 16:33:04 GMT) (full text, mbox, link).

Acknowledgement sent to Adrian Bunk <bunk@stusta.de> :

Extra info received and forwarded to list. Copy sent to wnpp@debian.org . (Mon, 16 Dec 2013 16:33:04 GMT) (full text, mbox, link).

Message #60 received at 729203@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Adrian Bunk <bunk@stusta.de> To: 729203-submitter@bugs.debian.org, 729203@bugs.debian.org Subject: RFP is not a solution for ffmpeg Date: Mon, 16 Dec 2013 18:31:28 +0200

Hi Rogério, I am currently doing some cleanup among WNPP bugs, and this one strikes me as between useless and harmful. Harmful, since adding ffmpeg additionally to libav to the archive would create a great mess with the ffmpeg/libav libraries. The only way to prevent endless discussions would be if you close this RFP and instead send a bug to the Debian Technical Committee [1] for a technical decision whether jessie should ship with libav or ffmpeg. You could provide a link to a summary of the history of the ffmpeg/libav split in case any of the Technical Committee members doesn't know about it - it might not be relevant for the technical decision whether libav or ffmpeg is a better choice for jessie, but it explains why a neutral third party is needed for a decision. Describe in detail why you think ffmpeg would be a better choice for jessie than libav. Invite the multimedia maintainers to describe in that bug why libav would be a better choice for jessie than ffmpeg. The Technical Committee then has the power to make a binding decision. No matter which way the decision goes, it would be better to have a decision that settles the issue for the near future than endless discussions. cu Adrian [1] http://www.debian.org/devel/tech-ctte [2] http://deb-multimedia.org/dists/unstable/main/binary-amd64/package/ffmpeg -- "Is there not promise of rain?" Ling Tan asked suddenly out of the darkness. There had been need of rain for many days. "Only a promise," Lao Er said. Pearl S. Buck - Dragon Seed

Message sent on to Rogério Brito <rbrito@ime.usp.br> :

Bug#729203. (Mon, 16 Dec 2013 16:33:12 GMT) (full text, mbox, link).

Information forwarded to debian-bugs-dist@lists.debian.org, wnpp@debian.org :

Bug#729203 ; Package wnpp . (Sat, 21 Dec 2013 06:21:04 GMT) (full text, mbox, link).

Acknowledgement sent to Ma Xiaojun <damage3025@gmail.com> :

Extra info received and forwarded to list. Copy sent to wnpp@debian.org . (Sat, 21 Dec 2013 06:21:05 GMT) (full text, mbox, link).

Message #68 received at 729203@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Ma Xiaojun <damage3025@gmail.com> To: 729203@bugs.debian.org Subject: Tired of Libav "virus" Date: Sat, 21 Dec 2013 14:18:09 +0800

Libav is an annoying "virus". On one hand, it pretends itself to be FFmpeg; maybe this is due to the fact that many software don't bother to port. On the other hand, it tries very hard to discredit FFmpeg and doesn't bother to be compatible with new FFmpeg development. ( The converse is not true. ) The end result is that breakage occurs here and there, users are confused and ended up compiling FFmpeg manually. In case Debian insists on weird choice, interested people may instead try getting FFmpeg reappear in Ubuntu. I've filed a bug here: https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/libav/+bug/1263278 Ubuntu is arguably the biggest contributor of the spreading of Libav "virus". Innocent, uninformed Ubuntu users just get confused: http://stackoverflow.com/questions/12651816/libswresample-in-recent-ubuntu-version http://stackoverflow.com/questions/9477115/who-can-tell-me-the-difference-and-relation-between-ffmpeg-libav-and-avconv https://github.com/hrydgard/ppsspp/issues/2322 They need our help.

Information forwarded to debian-bugs-dist@lists.debian.org, wnpp@debian.org :

Bug#729203 ; Package wnpp . (Tue, 24 Dec 2013 07:15:04 GMT) (full text, mbox, link).

Acknowledgement sent to Zero Zero <ourzeromail@gmail.com> :

Extra info received and forwarded to list. Copy sent to wnpp@debian.org . (Tue, 24 Dec 2013 07:15:04 GMT) (full text, mbox, link).

Message #73 received at 729203@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Zero Zero <ourzeromail@gmail.com> To: 729203@bugs.debian.org Subject: RFP: ffmpeg -- complete, cross-platform solution to record, convert and stream audio and video Date: Tue, 24 Dec 2013 10:42:03 +0330

Hi, We really want to use ffmpeg instead of libav. Please return ffmpeg to us. Thanks.

Information forwarded to debian-bugs-dist@lists.debian.org, wnpp@debian.org :

Bug#729203 ; Package wnpp . (Wed, 25 Dec 2013 11:15:05 GMT) (full text, mbox, link).

Acknowledgement sent to Samuele Rini <samuele.rini76@gmail.com> :

Extra info received and forwarded to list. Copy sent to wnpp@debian.org . (Wed, 25 Dec 2013 11:15:05 GMT) (full text, mbox, link).

Message #78 received at 729203@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Samuele Rini <samuele.rini76@gmail.com> To: 729203@bugs.debian.org Subject: Yes, bring FFmpeg back Date: Wed, 25 Dec 2013 12:13:52 +0100

I hated this message: >>*** THIS PROGRAM IS DEPRECATED *** >>This program is only provided for compatibility and will be removed in a future release. Please use avconv instead. ...and it's simply NOT true. Now I'm compiling it manually. Not a big issue. But I think FFmpeg deserves to be back.

Information forwarded to debian-bugs-dist@lists.debian.org, wnpp@debian.org :

Bug#729203 ; Package wnpp . (Thu, 26 Dec 2013 02:39:05 GMT) (full text, mbox, link).

Acknowledgement sent to <tomaspartl@centrum.cz> :

Extra info received and forwarded to list. Copy sent to wnpp@debian.org . (Thu, 26 Dec 2013 02:39:05 GMT) (full text, mbox, link).

Message #83 received at 729203@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: <tomaspartl@centrum.cz> To: <729203@bugs.debian.org> Subject: I want the REAL ffmpeg Date: Thu, 26 Dec 2013 03:29:56 +0100

Hello! I very much support the idea to get the REAL ffmpeg back into Debian! I, too, have to manually compile ffmpeg from source ever since Debian started supplying the inferior and crippled libav in the guise of ffmpeg. To Adrian Bunk: Substituting an inferior piece of software which at the same time impedes inclusion of its more functional counterpart by hijacking library names needed no approval by any comittee. Yet, correcting the breakage needs a committe to approve of it. Isn't there something wrong with the relevant Debian policies? P.S. Anybody care to join two video files with libav? Libav: http://libav.org/faq.html#How-can-I-join-video-files_003f FFmpeg: https://trac.ffmpeg.org/wiki/How%20to%20concatenate%20%28join%2C%20merge%29%20media%20files#differentcodec

Information forwarded to debian-bugs-dist@lists.debian.org, wnpp@debian.org :

Bug#729203 ; Package wnpp . (Sun, 29 Dec 2013 07:09:04 GMT) (full text, mbox, link).

Acknowledgement sent to Pavel Bohmat <despicere@gmail.com> :

Extra info received and forwarded to list. Copy sent to wnpp@debian.org . (Sun, 29 Dec 2013 07:09:04 GMT) (full text, mbox, link).

Message #88 received at 729203@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Pavel Bohmat <despicere@gmail.com> To: 729203@bugs.debian.org Date: Sun, 29 Dec 2013 09:07:46 +0200

+22 people who need ffmpeg https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/libav/+bug/1020856

Information forwarded to debian-bugs-dist@lists.debian.org, wnpp@debian.org :

Bug#729203 ; Package wnpp . (Sun, 29 Dec 2013 21:45:14 GMT) (full text, mbox, link).

Acknowledgement sent to Hans Erik van Elburg <hanserik.van.elburg@gmail.com> :

Extra info received and forwarded to list. Copy sent to wnpp@debian.org . (Sun, 29 Dec 2013 21:45:14 GMT) (full text, mbox, link).

Message #93 received at 729203@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Hans Erik van Elburg <hanserik.van.elburg@gmail.com> To: 729203@bugs.debian.org Subject: please include the real ffmpeg Date: Sun, 29 Dec 2013 22:43:39 +0100

+1 forking is fine, highjacking name and fame of established software package is not. Please distribute the real ffmpeg.

Information forwarded to debian-bugs-dist@lists.debian.org, wnpp@debian.org :

Bug#729203 ; Package wnpp . (Tue, 31 Dec 2013 13:57:14 GMT) (full text, mbox, link).

Acknowledgement sent to Leo Izen <leo.izen@gmail.com> :

Extra info received and forwarded to list. Copy sent to wnpp@debian.org . (Tue, 31 Dec 2013 13:57:14 GMT) (full text, mbox, link).

Message #98 received at 729203@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Leo Izen <leo.izen@gmail.com> To: 729203@bugs.debian.org Subject: Yes, switch Debian/Ubuntu to FFmpeg Date: Tue, 31 Dec 2013 08:52:27 -0500

I agree that we should go back to FFmpeg from Libav. I build FFmpeg from source frequently, but this isn't enough. Packages such as Totem, VLC Media Player, or Audacity either natively depend on the libav* libraries or have plugins for libav* support. Building FFmpeg from source works for the command line, but I can't use players such as VLC Media Player to play certain video files I have because Libav's libavcodec doesn't support them. (For example, FFmpeg supports the Windows Media Player MSS2 codec but Libav does not.) In addition, FFmpeg continues to be ABI- and API-compatible with Libav so a switch will not harm any existing programs. However, Libav does not try to be compatible with FFmpeg.

Information forwarded to debian-bugs-dist@lists.debian.org, wnpp@debian.org :

Bug#729203 ; Package wnpp . (Wed, 01 Jan 2014 12:33:09 GMT) (full text, mbox, link).

Acknowledgement sent to Ed Rogalsky <ed.rogalsky@gmail.com> :

Extra info received and forwarded to list. Copy sent to wnpp@debian.org . (Wed, 01 Jan 2014 12:33:09 GMT) (full text, mbox, link).

Message #103 received at 729203@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Ed Rogalsky <ed.rogalsky@gmail.com> To: 729203@bugs.debian.org Subject: ffmpeg for debian/ubuntu Date: Wed, 1 Jan 2014 13:29:53 +0100

Hi, please please provide ffmpeg in ubuntu because I had a lot of trouble with libav. I compile myself ffmpeg. eddrog

Information forwarded to debian-bugs-dist@lists.debian.org, wnpp@debian.org :

Bug#729203 ; Package wnpp . (Mon, 06 Jan 2014 02:57:10 GMT) (full text, mbox, link).

Acknowledgement sent to igor@levicki.net :

Extra info received and forwarded to list. Copy sent to wnpp@debian.org . (Mon, 06 Jan 2014 02:57:10 GMT) (full text, mbox, link).

Message #108 received at 729203@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Igor Levicki <igor@levicki.net> To: 729203@bugs.debian.org Subject: Bring back ffmpeg Date: Mon, 06 Jan 2014 03:43:07 +0100

As a user and as a developer I vote for bringing ffmpeg back, at least as an option. I also want to voice my concern about this kind of turf wars and the future of open-source. It is OK that one of Debian/Ubuntu upstream developers disagreed with Michael Niedermayer and made a fork, although the way it has been done was really ugly. It is OK to decide to include the fork in Debian/Ubuntu. What is not OK is to remove a choice from the end user and to insinuate with your message about deprecation how ffmpeg is inferior to your own fork. Why don't you let users decide? Or you perhaps forgot who made you popular? It is sad that you talk about Committee and waste time politicking and arguing here when your stable network based install can't even detect Intel network adapters due to your developers not updating 3 year old e1000e driver in installer ISO. -- Regards, Igor Levicki

Information forwarded to debian-bugs-dist@lists.debian.org, wnpp@debian.org :

Bug#729203 ; Package wnpp . (Tue, 07 Jan 2014 13:30:04 GMT) (full text, mbox, link).

Acknowledgement sent to Sivabalan K <sivabalan_k@spanservices.com> :

Extra info received and forwarded to list. Copy sent to wnpp@debian.org . (Tue, 07 Jan 2014 13:30:04 GMT) (full text, mbox, link).

Message #113 received at 729203@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Sivabalan K <sivabalan_k@spanservices.com> To: "729203@bugs.debian.org" <729203@bugs.debian.org> Subject: Please add the ffmpeg package to ubuntu software repositories Date: Tue, 7 Jan 2014 13:17:17 +0000

Please add the ffmpeg package to Ubuntu software repositories Regards, Sivabalan K DISCLAIMER: This email message and all attachments are confidential and may contain information that is Privileged, Confidential or exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If you are not the intended recipient, you are notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this email is strictly prohibited. If you have received this email in error, please notify us immediately by return email to mailadmin@spanservices.com and destroy the original message. Opinions, conclusions and other information in this message that do not relate to the official of SPAN, shall be understood to be nether given nor endorsed by SPAN.

Information forwarded to debian-bugs-dist@lists.debian.org, wnpp@debian.org :

Bug#729203 ; Package wnpp . (Fri, 10 Jan 2014 00:03:05 GMT) (full text, mbox, link).

Acknowledgement sent to "Patrick Shirkey" <pshirkey@boosthardware.com> :

Extra info received and forwarded to list. Copy sent to wnpp@debian.org . (Fri, 10 Jan 2014 00:03:05 GMT) (full text, mbox, link).

Message #118 received at 729203@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: "Patrick Shirkey" <pshirkey@boosthardware.com> To: 729203@bugs.debian.org Subject: FFMPEG and libav should be a choice Date: Fri, 10 Jan 2014 10:36:24 +1100 (EST)

Hi, Linux Audio Developers often have to assist users with audio and multimedia issues that are working in ffmpeg but not in libav. In addition the deprecation message for the ffmpeg wrapper causes a lot of confusion and even though it is not meant maliciously most people perceive it as an attack on FFMPEG by petty libav developers. This is neither good for the open source multimedia community as it encourages and promotes fractious behaviour but it also misleads people into thinking that FFMPEG is an abandoned project. I have monitored the commits for both libav and ffmpeg for the past few years and I can tell you that FFMPEG has more commits than libav. It is clearly not a project that is going away anytime soon. In short FFMPEG is one of the most powerful multimedia tools that we have and it is a travesty that a couple of Debian package maintainers have been allowed to make the decision for us on which fork we are able to install. The Debian community needs to look closely at the background for this decision making process especially with a view towards the ongoing damage that the continued promotion of FFMPEG as a deprecated project is doing to global perception of Linux Multimedia as well as the confusion that has been caused to date. This is along the same lines as the purposefully bad implementation of PulseAudip that plagued Ubuntu users for a number of years. It was only solved when Mark Shuttleworth stepped in and personally fired the people responsible for the mismanaged audio system. The damage that was caused and the ongoing negative perception to Pulse Audio that still exists is taking many years to rectify. it's time that Linux Multimedia was given a higher political priority. Many of the greatest leaps forward over the past several years wouldn't have been possible without ALSA, Pulse Audio, FFMPEG and various other open source multimedia projects. Continuing to allow a substandard fork of a well loved and very active project to be promoted as the "new way" needs to stop. -- Patrick Shirkey Boost Hardware Ltd

Information forwarded to debian-bugs-dist@lists.debian.org, wnpp@debian.org :

Bug#729203 ; Package wnpp . (Fri, 10 Jan 2014 02:15:04 GMT) (full text, mbox, link).

Acknowledgement sent to Luigino Bracci <lbracci@gmail.com> :

Extra info received and forwarded to list. Copy sent to wnpp@debian.org . (Fri, 10 Jan 2014 02:15:04 GMT) (full text, mbox, link).

Message #123 received at 729203@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Luigino Bracci <lbracci@gmail.com> To: 729203@bugs.debian.org Subject: Support to ffmpeg in Debian Date: Thu, 9 Jan 2014 21:43:55 -0430

I also prefer that Debian uses ffmpeg again; their development is faster, and ffmpeg have more features that libav. Please bring it back.

Information forwarded to debian-bugs-dist@lists.debian.org, wnpp@debian.org :

Bug#729203 ; Package wnpp . (Fri, 10 Jan 2014 07:21:09 GMT) (full text, mbox, link).

Acknowledgement sent to Lorenzo Sutton <lorenzofsutton@gmail.com> :

Extra info received and forwarded to list. Copy sent to wnpp@debian.org . Your message did not contain a Subject field. They are recommended and useful because the title of a $gBug is determined using this field. Please remember to include a Subject field in your messages in future. (Fri, 10 Jan 2014 07:21:09 GMT) (full text, mbox, link).

Message #128 received at 729203@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Lorenzo Sutton <lorenzofsutton@gmail.com> To: 729203@bugs.debian.org Date: Fri, 10 Jan 2014 08:17:45 +0100

Agree with many on at least providing the *option* for users to have the original ffmpeg instead of libav and using sensible clear names and descriptions for both packages. The 'deprecation' message is at least confusing and misleading. Without getting into the politics of the fork etc. users should be able to do apt-get install ffmpeg or apr-get install libav Am compiling ffmpeg manually and it's boring and time-consuming. And as a multimedia user I prefer ffmpeg to libav. Lorenzo.

Information forwarded to debian-bugs-dist@lists.debian.org, wnpp@debian.org :

Bug#729203 ; Package wnpp . (Fri, 10 Jan 2014 16:54:19 GMT) (full text, mbox, link).

Acknowledgement sent to Adrian Bunk <bunk@stusta.de> :

Extra info received and forwarded to list. Copy sent to wnpp@debian.org . (Fri, 10 Jan 2014 16:54:19 GMT) (full text, mbox, link).

Message #133 received at 729203@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Adrian Bunk <bunk@stusta.de> To: Lorenzo Sutton <lorenzofsutton@gmail.com>, 729203@bugs.debian.org Subject: Re: Bug#729203: (no subject) Date: Fri, 10 Jan 2014 18:52:06 +0200

On Fri, Jan 10, 2014 at 08:17:45AM +0100, Lorenzo Sutton wrote: > Agree with many on at least providing the *option* for users to have > the original ffmpeg instead of libav and using sensible clear names > and descriptions for both packages. >... > > Without getting into the politics of the fork etc. users should be > able to do > > apt-get install ffmpeg > > or > > apr-get install libav >... It is a misconception that making this optional would be a reasonable solution - in reality the hassle that would create would is so huge that no sane person would want to implement the packaging for something like that. Doing that for local use might not be too hard, but doing it 100% correct for a Debian release is simply not feasible. > Lorenzo. cu Adrian -- "Is there not promise of rain?" Ling Tan asked suddenly out of the darkness. There had been need of rain for many days. "Only a promise," Lao Er said. Pearl S. Buck - Dragon Seed

Information forwarded to debian-bugs-dist@lists.debian.org, wnpp@debian.org :

Bug#729203 ; Package wnpp . (Fri, 10 Jan 2014 20:51:04 GMT) (full text, mbox, link).

Acknowledgement sent to "Georg Lippitsch" <georg.lippitsch@gmx.at> :

Extra info received and forwarded to list. Copy sent to wnpp@debian.org . (Fri, 10 Jan 2014 20:51:04 GMT) (full text, mbox, link).

Message #138 received at 729203@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: "Georg Lippitsch" <georg.lippitsch@gmx.at> To: 729203@bugs.debian.org Subject: Re: Bug#729203: (no subject) Date: Fri, 10 Jan 2014 21:50:37 +0100

Am 10.01.2014, 17:52 Uhr, schrieb Adrian Bunk <bunk@stusta.de>: to do >> >> apt-get install ffmpeg >> >> or >> >> apr-get install libav >> ... > > It is a misconception that making this optional would be a reasonable > solution - in reality the hassle that would create would is so huge > that no sane person would want to implement the packaging for something > like that. But anyways, the misleading naming of the packages should stop. If Debian decides to go with libav, they should not name the package ffmpeg. Repeatedly explaining to people that they do not have ffmpeg on their computer despite typing "apt-get install ffmpeg" is really annoying. Georg

Information forwarded to debian-bugs-dist@lists.debian.org, wnpp@debian.org :

Bug#729203 ; Package wnpp . (Fri, 10 Jan 2014 21:03:04 GMT) (full text, mbox, link).

Acknowledgement sent to Adrian Bunk <bunk@stusta.de> :

Extra info received and forwarded to list. Copy sent to wnpp@debian.org . (Fri, 10 Jan 2014 21:03:04 GMT) (full text, mbox, link).

Message #143 received at 729203@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Adrian Bunk <bunk@stusta.de> To: Georg Lippitsch <georg.lippitsch@gmx.at>, 729203@bugs.debian.org Subject: Re: Bug#729203: (no subject) Date: Fri, 10 Jan 2014 22:59:09 +0200

On Fri, Jan 10, 2014 at 09:50:37PM +0100, Georg Lippitsch wrote: > Am 10.01.2014, 17:52 Uhr, schrieb Adrian Bunk <bunk@stusta.de>: > > to do > >> > >>apt-get install ffmpeg > >> > >>or > >> > >>apr-get install libav > >>... > > > >It is a misconception that making this optional would be a reasonable > >solution - in reality the hassle that would create would is so huge > >that no sane person would want to implement the packaging for something > >like that. > > But anyways, the misleading naming of the packages should stop. If > Debian decides to go with libav, they should not name the package > ffmpeg. Repeatedly explaining to people that they do not have ffmpeg > on their computer despite typing "apt-get install ffmpeg" is really > annoying. That's already implimented in exactly the way you demand in unstable/testing: http://packages.debian.org/ffmpeg http://packages.debian.org/libav-tools > Georg cu Adrian -- "Is there not promise of rain?" Ling Tan asked suddenly out of the darkness. There had been need of rain for many days. "Only a promise," Lao Er said. Pearl S. Buck - Dragon Seed

Information forwarded to debian-bugs-dist@lists.debian.org, wnpp@debian.org :

Bug#729203 ; Package wnpp . (Fri, 10 Jan 2014 21:06:04 GMT) (full text, mbox, link).

Acknowledgement sent to Sebastian Ramacher <sramacher@debian.org> :

Extra info received and forwarded to list. Copy sent to wnpp@debian.org . (Fri, 10 Jan 2014 21:06:04 GMT) (full text, mbox, link).

Message #148 received at 729203@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Sebastian Ramacher <sramacher@debian.org> To: Georg Lippitsch <georg.lippitsch@gmx.at>, 729203@bugs.debian.org Subject: Re: Bug#729203: (no subject) Date: Fri, 10 Jan 2014 22:03:32 +0100

On 2014-01-10 21:50:37, Georg Lippitsch wrote: > Am 10.01.2014, 17:52 Uhr, schrieb Adrian Bunk <bunk@stusta.de>: > > to do > >> > >>apt-get install ffmpeg > >> > >>or > >> > >>apr-get install libav > >>... > > > >It is a misconception that making this optional would be a reasonable > >solution - in reality the hassle that would create would is so huge > >that no sane person would want to implement the packaging for something > >like that. > > But anyways, the misleading naming of the packages should stop. If > Debian decides to go with libav, they should not name the package > ffmpeg. Repeatedly explaining to people that they do not have ffmpeg > on their computer despite typing "apt-get install ffmpeg" is really > annoying. The ffmpeg binary package does no longer exist in jessie and sid. It got removed at the end of September 2013. Regards -- Sebastian Ramacher

Information forwarded to debian-bugs-dist@lists.debian.org, wnpp@debian.org :

Bug#729203 ; Package wnpp . (Sat, 11 Jan 2014 02:09:05 GMT) (full text, mbox, link).

Acknowledgement sent to Timothy Gu <timothygu99@gmail.com> :

Extra info received and forwarded to list. Copy sent to wnpp@debian.org . (Sat, 11 Jan 2014 02:09:05 GMT) (full text, mbox, link).

Message #153 received at 729203@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Timothy Gu <timothygu99@gmail.com> To: Adrian Bunk <bunk@stusta.de>, 729203@bugs.debian.org Subject: Bug#729203: (no subject) Date: Fri, 10 Jan 2014 18:04:21 -0800

Hi Adrian, Sorry if this is a duplicated mail because I forgot to CC the bug list. On Jan 10, 2014 8:54 AM, "Adrian Bunk" <bunk@stusta.de <javascript:_e({}, 'cvml', 'bunk@stusta.de');>> wrote: > > On Fri, Jan 10, 2014 at 08:17:45AM +0100, Lorenzo Sutton wrote: > > Agree with many on at least providing the *option* for users to have > > the original ffmpeg instead of libav and using sensible clear names > > and descriptions for both packages. > >... > > > > Without getting into the politics of the fork etc. users should be > > able to do > > > > apt-get install ffmpeg > > > > or > > > > apr-get install libav > >... > > It is a misconception that making this optional would be a reasonable > solution - in reality the hassle that would create would is so huge > that no sane person would want to implement the packaging for something > like that. > > Doing that for local use might not be too hard, but doing it 100% > correct for a Debian release is simply not feasible. API/ABI sure is a problem, but please look at how Gentoo and potentially some other distros do that (e.g. Homebrew). Also in case you don't already know, FFmpeg tries very hard to preserve both backwards and Libav compatibility. And this is essential to packagers. Timothy

Information forwarded to debian-bugs-dist@lists.debian.org, wnpp@debian.org :

Bug#729203 ; Package wnpp . (Sun, 12 Jan 2014 12:33:04 GMT) (full text, mbox, link).

Acknowledgement sent to Pau Koning <paukoning@gmail.com> :

Extra info received and forwarded to list. Copy sent to wnpp@debian.org . (Sun, 12 Jan 2014 12:33:04 GMT) (full text, mbox, link).

Message #158 received at 729203@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Pau Koning <paukoning@gmail.com> To: 729203@bugs.debian.org Subject: Recommendation to use FFMPEG for security reasons Date: Sun, 12 Jan 2014 13:30:48 +0100

Here is an advisory from security researchers who recommend to use FFMPEG instead of Libav [1] "The other ~350 commits in FFmpeg were mostly submitted by Libav project developers: Ronald S. Bultje, Luca Barbato, Alex Converse, Martin Storsjö and Anton Khirnov. We have been concurrently reporting issues in Libav during the last several months and similarly to FFmpeg, the maintainers are doing a great job writing and submitting patches, which FFmpeg is also cherry-picking to their own git repository (large chunks of the two projects are shared, as Libav started as a fork of FFmpeg). While the former project is doing their best to catch up with the latter, the figures speak for themselves again: there are “only” 413 commits tagged “Jurczyk” or “Coldwind” in Libav, so even though some of the FFmpeg bugs might not apply to Libav, there are still many unresolved issues there which are already fixed in FFmpeg. Consequently, we advise users to use the FFmpeg upstream code where possible, or the latest stable version (currently 2.1.1) otherwise. It is also a good idea to carefully consider which formats and codecs are necessary for your use case and disable all other parsers during compilation time, in order to reduce the attack surface to a minimum." The security team found over 1120 bugs (which were now fixed in FFMPEG but not all in libav) [1] http://j00ru.vexillium.org/?p=2211

Information forwarded to debian-bugs-dist@lists.debian.org, wnpp@debian.org :

Bug#729203 ; Package wnpp . (Mon, 13 Jan 2014 16:21:04 GMT) (full text, mbox, link).

Acknowledgement sent to Adrian Bunk <bunk@stusta.de> :

Extra info received and forwarded to list. Copy sent to wnpp@debian.org . (Mon, 13 Jan 2014 16:21:04 GMT) (full text, mbox, link).

Message #163 received at 729203@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Adrian Bunk <bunk@stusta.de> To: Timothy Gu <timothygu99@gmail.com> Subject: Re: Bug#729203: (no subject) Date: Sun, 12 Jan 2014 19:54:14 +0200

On Fri, Jan 10, 2014 at 03:40:48PM -0800, Timothy Gu wrote: > On Jan 10, 2014 8:54 AM, "Adrian Bunk" <bunk@stusta.de> wrote: > > > > On Fri, Jan 10, 2014 at 08:17:45AM +0100, Lorenzo Sutton wrote: > > > Agree with many on at least providing the *option* for users to have > > > the original ffmpeg instead of libav and using sensible clear names > > > and descriptions for both packages. > > >... > > > > > > Without getting into the politics of the fork etc. users should be > > > able to do > > > > > > apt-get install ffmpeg > > > > > > or > > > > > > apr-get install libav > > >... > > > > It is a misconception that making this optional would be a reasonable > > solution - in reality the hassle that would create would is so huge > > that no sane person would want to implement the packaging for something > > like that. > > > > Doing that for local use might not be too hard, but doing it 100% > > correct for a Debian release is simply not feasible. > > API/ABI sure is a problem, but please look at how Gentoo and potentially > some other distros do that (e.g. Homebrew). >... Any build-from-source distro can simply force a "rebuild everything using ffmpeg/libav" when switching between libav and ffmpeg. That's a completely different situation. > Timothy cu Adrian -- "Is there not promise of rain?" Ling Tan asked suddenly out of the darkness. There had been need of rain for many days. "Only a promise," Lao Er said. Pearl S. Buck - Dragon Seed

Information forwarded to debian-bugs-dist@lists.debian.org, wnpp@debian.org :

Bug#729203 ; Package wnpp . (Tue, 14 Jan 2014 08:30:05 GMT) (full text, mbox, link).

Acknowledgement sent to Rustom Mody <rustompmody@gmail.com> :

Extra info received and forwarded to list. Copy sent to wnpp@debian.org . (Tue, 14 Jan 2014 08:30:05 GMT) (full text, mbox, link).

Message #168 received at 729203@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Rustom Mody <rustompmody@gmail.com> To: 729203@bugs.debian.org Subject: Re: RFP: ffmpeg -- complete, cross-platform solution to record, convert and stream audio and video Date: Tue, 14 Jan 2014 13:56:22 +0530

FLOSS software and linux distros in particular are as successful as they are because of the separation between developers and distro-packagers. Disputes and disagreements will happen from time to time. However when debian takes a side and goes to the extent of using a name for a hostile fork, it certainly weakens debian. It also weakens FLOSS And the fact that ffmpeg does not exist in debian repos any more does not hold any water -- it was part of the hostile takeover

Information forwarded to debian-bugs-dist@lists.debian.org, wnpp@debian.org :

Bug#729203 ; Package wnpp . (Sun, 19 Jan 2014 02:42:10 GMT) (full text, mbox, link).

Acknowledgement sent to Gerhard Paulus <gerhard.paulus@googlemail.com> :

Extra info received and forwarded to list. Copy sent to wnpp@debian.org . (Sun, 19 Jan 2014 02:42:10 GMT) (full text, mbox, link).

Message #173 received at 729203@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Gerhard Paulus <gerhard.paulus@googlemail.com> To: 729203@bugs.debian.org Subject: PLEASE give us the real FFMPEG back ! Date: Sun, 19 Jan 2014 03:39:46 +0100

PLEASE give us the real FFMPEG back ! If I enter sudo apt-get install ffmpeg then obviously I want to install and use FFMPEG (and not some other software). Boy, was I fed up when I discovered that the current "ffmpeg package" does not contain FFMPEG at all but is only this avconv thing in disguise. And i needed FFMPEG with which it's really a pleasure to concatenate videos (avconv is utterly useless for this). The current packaging is a criminal act: it's fraud. That this was tolerated in the allegedly "high integrity" Debian system utterly escapes me. PLEASE make sure that 'apt-get install ffmpeg' actually does what users want: provide the original FFMPEG ! To the FFMPEG-team: many, many thanks for making such a good and useful software :-)

Information forwarded to debian-bugs-dist@lists.debian.org, wnpp@debian.org :

Bug#729203 ; Package wnpp . (Thu, 23 Jan 2014 12:21:13 GMT) (full text, mbox, link).

Acknowledgement sent to e <0x0065@gmail.com> :

Extra info received and forwarded to list. Copy sent to wnpp@debian.org . (Thu, 23 Jan 2014 12:21:13 GMT) (full text, mbox, link).

Message #178 received at 729203@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: e <0x0065@gmail.com> To: 729203@bugs.debian.org Subject: not just shameful and fraudulent. Also defamitory and un-foss-ly Date: Thu, 23 Jan 2014 22:17:15 +1000

I am shocked that debian have sunk so low. Fraudulently packaging one offering and passing it off as another is one issue. Defaming the author of the original package whilst impersonating them is another much bigger issue entirely. I make no claim to have a detailed understanding of the exact letter of the GPL, but the free software ethos is pretty clear to me: that, if you take someone's work and fork it and amend it and re-distribute it, then you do not hold it out to be the original. You clearly define what is different and are straight forward and up front about what you have changed. This is so sordid and shady. Goodbye debian, ubuntu, mint and deb. It was fun while it lasted. I might come to visit occasionally for some steam action. Luckily steam doesn't depend on "libav pretending to be someone they aren't".

Information forwarded to debian-bugs-dist@lists.debian.org, wnpp@debian.org :

Bug#729203 ; Package wnpp . (Thu, 23 Jan 2014 21:15:13 GMT) (full text, mbox, link).

Acknowledgement sent to Samuel Orr <uraharakisuke153@gmail.com> :

Extra info received and forwarded to list. Copy sent to wnpp@debian.org . (Thu, 23 Jan 2014 21:15:13 GMT) (full text, mbox, link).

Message #183 received at 729203@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Samuel Orr <uraharakisuke153@gmail.com> To: 729203@bugs.debian.org Subject: please include ffmpeg Date: Thu, 23 Jan 2014 16:12:57 -0500

Greetings Debian maintainers, When the fork initially started I was not sure why or which to use. I trusted Debian's decision to go with libav-tools (they know more than I?). Now though, I know that for my use case ffmpeg is much more usable. I use this script to record or stream my desktop (replace ffmpeg with avconv when using libav-tools). It does not work using avconv. It records a few seconds of output, and then freezes. When I try streaming, my stream is blank. It works correctly using ffmpeg. Please reconsider packaging or even replacing libav-tools with ffmpeg. Thanks, Samuel M. Orr Here is the script: #!/bin/sh schedtool -I -e ffmpeg -f x11grab -r 15 -s 1024x768 -i :0.0 -f alsa -i default \ -vcodec libx264 -preset ultrafast -g 30 -vb 2000k -minrate 2000k -maxrate 2000k \ -pix_fmt yuv420p -acodec libmp3lame -ar 44100 -ab 64k -sn -bufsize 2064k -f flv \ ~/test.flv

Information forwarded to debian-bugs-dist@lists.debian.org, wnpp@debian.org :

Bug#729203 ; Package wnpp . (Thu, 30 Jan 2014 12:51:07 GMT) (full text, mbox, link).

Acknowledgement sent to Bodar Bbs <bbs.bodar@gmail.com> :

Extra info received and forwarded to list. Copy sent to wnpp@debian.org . (Thu, 30 Jan 2014 12:51:07 GMT) (full text, mbox, link).

Message #188 received at 729203@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Bodar Bbs <bbs.bodar@gmail.com> To: 729203@bugs.debian.org Subject: ffmpeg Date: Thu, 30 Jan 2014 18:18:00 +0530

visit this for enable ffmpeg on your website....http://easyscript4u.blogspot.in/2013/06/how-to-enable-ffmpeg-in-php.html -- Thanks and Regards Bhavesh Bodar (BBS) +91 968 7777 240

Information forwarded to debian-bugs-dist@lists.debian.org, wnpp@debian.org :

Bug#729203 ; Package wnpp . (Mon, 03 Feb 2014 15:36:09 GMT) (full text, mbox, link).

Acknowledgement sent to anarcat <anarcat@debian.org> :

Extra info received and forwarded to list. Copy sent to wnpp@debian.org . (Mon, 03 Feb 2014 15:36:09 GMT) (full text, mbox, link).

Message #193 received at 729203@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: anarcat <anarcat@debian.org> To: 729203@bugs.debian.org Cc: Rogério Brito <rbrito@ime.usp.br>, Adrian Bunk <bunk@stusta.de> Subject: Re: CTTE and reasonable solutions Date: Mon, 3 Feb 2014 10:33:17 -0500

On Fri, 10 Jan 2014 18:52:06 +0200, Adrian Bunk wrote: > On Fri, Jan 10, 2014 at 08:17:45AM +0100, Lorenzo Sutton wrote: > > Agree with many on at least providing the *option* for users to have > > the original ffmpeg instead of libav and using sensible clear names > > and descriptions for both packages. > >... > > > > Without getting into the politics of the fork etc. users should be > > able to do > > > > apt-get install ffmpeg > > > > or > > > > apr-get install libav > >... > > It is a misconception that making this optional would be a reasonable > solution - in reality the hassle that would create would is so huge > that no sane person would want to implement the packaging for something > like that. > > Doing that for local use might not be too hard, but doing it 100% > correct for a Debian release is simply not feasible. Can you clarify why this is not possible? The library names of ffmpeg and libav now seem perfectly orthogonal and it seems to me it should be possible to ship Jessie with both libav and ffmpeg if someone would be willing to package the latter. It turns out that this is exactly what this bug report is about: we have one brave soul that is volunteering for that effort. He has also clearly stated why libav doesn't respond to his requirements. If you have objections against ffmpeg being packaged in Debian, I suggest you clarify those instead of requiring Rogério to address the CTTE right away, which seems to me a little abusive. Rogério, I would suggest you go ahead with the packaging and an upload, don't let the flames fan your enthousiasm. A. -- Non qui parum habet, sed qui plus cupit, pauper est. It is not the man who has too little, but the man who craves more, that is poor. - Lucius Annaeus Seneca (65 AD)

Information forwarded to debian-bugs-dist@lists.debian.org, wnpp@debian.org :

Bug#729203 ; Package wnpp . (Mon, 03 Feb 2014 17:21:10 GMT) (full text, mbox, link).

Acknowledgement sent to Adrian Bunk <bunk@stusta.de> :

Extra info received and forwarded to list. Copy sent to wnpp@debian.org . (Mon, 03 Feb 2014 17:21:10 GMT) (full text, mbox, link).

Message #198 received at 729203@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Adrian Bunk <bunk@stusta.de> To: anarcat <anarcat@debian.org>, 729203@bugs.debian.org Cc: Rogério Brito <rbrito@ime.usp.br> Subject: Re: Bug#729203: CTTE and reasonable solutions Date: Mon, 3 Feb 2014 19:18:45 +0200

On Mon, Feb 03, 2014 at 10:33:17AM -0500, anarcat wrote: > On Fri, 10 Jan 2014 18:52:06 +0200, Adrian Bunk wrote: > > On Fri, Jan 10, 2014 at 08:17:45AM +0100, Lorenzo Sutton wrote: > > > Agree with many on at least providing the *option* for users to have > > > the original ffmpeg instead of libav and using sensible clear names > > > and descriptions for both packages. > > >... > > > > > > Without getting into the politics of the fork etc. users should be > > > able to do > > > > > > apt-get install ffmpeg > > > > > > or > > > > > > apr-get install libav > > >... > > > > It is a misconception that making this optional would be a reasonable > > solution - in reality the hassle that would create would is so huge > > that no sane person would want to implement the packaging for something > > like that. > > > > Doing that for local use might not be too hard, but doing it 100% > > correct for a Debian release is simply not feasible. > > Can you clarify why this is not possible? The library names of ffmpeg > and libav now seem perfectly orthogonal and it seems to me it should be > possible to ship Jessie with both libav and ffmpeg if someone would be > willing to package the latter. > > It turns out that this is exactly what this bug report is about: we have > one brave soul that is volunteering for that effort. He has also clearly > stated why libav doesn't respond to his requirements. > > If you have objections against ffmpeg being packaged in Debian, I > suggest you clarify those instead of requiring Rogério to address the > CTTE right away, which seems to me a little abusive. > > Rogério, I would suggest you go ahead with the packaging and an upload, > don't let the flames fan your enthousiasm. Can you clarify whether you are sincerely asking for clarification, or whether that would be pointless since you've anyway already decided that everything I write are "flames" and anything I'll answer you'll only use for further attacks against me? > A. cu Adrian -- "Is there not promise of rain?" Ling Tan asked suddenly out of the darkness. There had been need of rain for many days. "Only a promise," Lao Er said. Pearl S. Buck - Dragon Seed

Information forwarded to debian-bugs-dist@lists.debian.org, wnpp@debian.org :

Bug#729203 ; Package wnpp . (Mon, 03 Feb 2014 17:51:07 GMT) (full text, mbox, link).

Acknowledgement sent to Antoine Beaupré <anarcat@debian.org> :

Extra info received and forwarded to list. Copy sent to wnpp@debian.org . (Mon, 03 Feb 2014 17:51:08 GMT) (full text, mbox, link).

Message #203 received at 729203@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Antoine Beaupré <anarcat@debian.org> To: Adrian Bunk <bunk@stusta.de>, 729203@bugs.debian.org Cc: Rogério Brito <rbrito@ime.usp.br> Subject: Re: Bug#729203: CTTE and reasonable solutions Date: Mon, 03 Feb 2014 12:48:45 -0500

On 2014-02-03 12:18:45, Adrian Bunk wrote: > Can you clarify whether you are sincerely asking for clarification, or > whether that would be pointless since you've anyway already decided that > everything I write are "flames" and anything I'll answer you'll only use > for further attacks against me? It is interesting that you feel specifically targeted when I mention flames whereas I haven't specifically mentionned you were the source of the heat. There were numerous messages in this bug report so far and a number of them have been out of line. I would prefer if you would assume I was asking in good faith, in general. So yes, I am genuinely asking for clarification. A. -- À force de ne jamais réfléchir, on a un bonheur stupide - Jean Cocteau

Information forwarded to debian-bugs-dist@lists.debian.org, wnpp@debian.org :

Bug#729203 ; Package wnpp . (Mon, 03 Feb 2014 21:27:04 GMT) (full text, mbox, link).

Acknowledgement sent to Adrian Bunk <bunk@stusta.de> :

Extra info received and forwarded to list. Copy sent to wnpp@debian.org . (Mon, 03 Feb 2014 21:27:04 GMT) (full text, mbox, link).

Message #208 received at 729203@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Adrian Bunk <bunk@stusta.de> To: Antoine Beaupré <anarcat@debian.org>, 729203@bugs.debian.org Cc: Rogério Brito <rbrito@ime.usp.br> Subject: Re: Bug#729203: CTTE and reasonable solutions Date: Mon, 3 Feb 2014 23:22:38 +0200

On Mon, Feb 03, 2014 at 12:48:45PM -0500, Antoine Beaupré wrote: > On 2014-02-03 12:18:45, Adrian Bunk wrote: > > Can you clarify whether you are sincerely asking for clarification, or > > whether that would be pointless since you've anyway already decided that > > everything I write are "flames" and anything I'll answer you'll only use > > for further attacks against me? > > It is interesting that you feel specifically targeted when I mention > flames whereas I haven't specifically mentionned you were the source of > the heat. There were numerous messages in this bug report so far and a > number of them have been out of line. > > I would prefer if you would assume I was asking in good faith, in > general. You used "flames" in an email directly answering to me, and in a sentence where you told someone to go ahead without even waiting for the clarification you just asked from me. You should re-read how that sounded to me. > So yes, I am genuinely asking for clarification. First of all, your "The library names of ffmpeg and libav now seem perfectly orthogonal" is AFAIK not completely true, e.g. libswscale still seems to have the same soname in both projects. So you might end up mixing libav and ffmpeg libraries, and I wouldn't be sure that this would work smoothly in all cases. And if it would be true, then something like the suggested "apt-get install ffmpeg" would simply not do at all what was implied it would do. Let me use VLC as example: VLC (maintained by the same Debian multimedia maintainers as libav) is using the libav libraries, and therefore depends on them. When all libav libraries used by VLC have sonames different from the sonames of the ffmpeg libraries, then VLC will always use the libav libraries and never use any ffmpeg libraries at all. If all you expect to happen after "apt-get install ffmpeg" is that there is an ffmpeg binary that is using the ffmpeg libraries, then this might be doable. But if someone wants, as Lorenzo suggested, an "apt-get install ffmpeg" to magically switch all applications like VLC from using libav to ffmpeg, then one of the requirements for that would clearly be that there would have to be two versions of all binaries and libraries using libav/ffmpeg in the archive - one compiled with libav, and one compiled with ffmpeg. That would be technically insane, and politically impossible unless CTTE (or a GR) would override the likely veto from the Debian multimedia maintainers for doing that in any of the packages they maintain. > A. cu Adrian -- "Is there not promise of rain?" Ling Tan asked suddenly out of the darkness. There had been need of rain for many days. "Only a promise," Lao Er said. Pearl S. Buck - Dragon Seed

Information forwarded to debian-bugs-dist@lists.debian.org, wnpp@debian.org :

Bug#729203 ; Package wnpp . (Mon, 03 Feb 2014 21:36:04 GMT) (full text, mbox, link).

Acknowledgement sent to Antoine Beaupré <anarcat@debian.org> :

Extra info received and forwarded to list. Copy sent to wnpp@debian.org . (Mon, 03 Feb 2014 21:36:04 GMT) (full text, mbox, link).

Message #213 received at 729203@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Antoine Beaupré <anarcat@debian.org> To: Adrian Bunk <bunk@stusta.de>, 729203@bugs.debian.org Cc: Rogério Brito <rbrito@ime.usp.br> Subject: Re: Bug#729203: CTTE and reasonable solutions Date: Mon, 03 Feb 2014 16:32:49 -0500

On 2014-02-03 16:22:38, Adrian Bunk wrote: > On Mon, Feb 03, 2014 at 12:48:45PM -0500, Antoine Beaupré wrote: >> On 2014-02-03 12:18:45, Adrian Bunk wrote: >> > Can you clarify whether you are sincerely asking for clarification, or >> > whether that would be pointless since you've anyway already decided that >> > everything I write are "flames" and anything I'll answer you'll only use >> > for further attacks against me? >> >> It is interesting that you feel specifically targeted when I mention >> flames whereas I haven't specifically mentionned you were the source of >> the heat. There were numerous messages in this bug report so far and a >> number of them have been out of line. >> >> I would prefer if you would assume I was asking in good faith, in >> general. > > You used "flames" in an email directly answering to me, and in a > sentence where you told someone to go ahead without even waiting > for the clarification you just asked from me. > > You should re-read how that sounded to me. I am sorry you felt targeted, that was not my intention. >> So yes, I am genuinely asking for clarification. > > First of all, your "The library names of ffmpeg and libav now seem > perfectly orthogonal" is AFAIK not completely true, e.g. libswscale > still seems to have the same soname in both projects. So you might > end up mixing libav and ffmpeg libraries, and I wouldn't be sure > that this would work smoothly in all cases. I didn't know libswscale still had the same soname, but then I only summarily looked at the package contents. > And if it would be true, then something like the suggested > "apt-get install ffmpeg" would simply not do at all what was > implied it would do. I would assume it would imply installing ffmpeg. :) > Let me use VLC as example: > > VLC (maintained by the same Debian multimedia maintainers as libav) > is using the libav libraries, and therefore depends on them. > > When all libav libraries used by VLC have sonames different from the > sonames of the ffmpeg libraries, then VLC will always use the libav > libraries and never use any ffmpeg libraries at all. > > If all you expect to happen after "apt-get install ffmpeg" is that > there is an ffmpeg binary that is using the ffmpeg libraries, then > this might be doable. I think that would be a fair expectation. > But if someone wants, as Lorenzo suggested, an "apt-get install ffmpeg" > to magically switch all applications like VLC from using libav to > ffmpeg, then one of the requirements for that would clearly be that > there would have to be two versions of all binaries and libraries > using libav/ffmpeg in the archive - one compiled with libav, and > one compiled with ffmpeg. I reread Lorenzo's email, and it doesn't actually say "switch all applications like VLC from libav to ffmpeg". He just said: > users should be able to do > > apt-get install ffmpeg > > or > > apr-get install libav I think some people here are talking about using ffmpeg as a commandline-based conversion tool, not necessarily the way you are bringing up, as a library that (say) vlc is linking against. > That would be technically insane, and politically impossible unless > CTTE (or a GR) would override the likely veto from the Debian multimedia > maintainers for doing that in any of the packages they maintain. Then maybe this RFP can focus on providing the ffmpeg binary again and not necessarily get into replacing libav altogether, which I think was the original intention here, hence my original email. :) Cheers, A. -- Ce que les siècles des grands abatoirs nous aura appris Devrait être inscrit au fond de toutes les écoles; Voici l'homme: le destructeur des mondes est arrivé. - [no one is innocent]

Information forwarded to debian-bugs-dist@lists.debian.org, wnpp@debian.org :

Bug#729203 ; Package wnpp . (Mon, 03 Feb 2014 22:18:04 GMT) (full text, mbox, link).

Acknowledgement sent to Rogério Brito <rbrito@ime.usp.br> :

Extra info received and forwarded to list. Copy sent to wnpp@debian.org . (Mon, 03 Feb 2014 22:18:04 GMT) (full text, mbox, link).

Message #218 received at 729203@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Rogério Brito <rbrito@ime.usp.br> To: anarcat <anarcat@debian.org> Cc: 729203@bugs.debian.org, Adrian Bunk <bunk@stusta.de>, 729203-submitter@bugs.debian.org Subject: Re: CTTE and reasonable solutions Date: Mon, 3 Feb 2014 20:13:43 -0200

First of all, thank you very much for CC'ing me, as I am not receiving things from this bug report (despite having tried to subscribe to the bug). On Feb 03 2014, anarcat wrote: > On Fri, 10 Jan 2014 18:52:06 +0200, Adrian Bunk wrote: > > It is a misconception that making this optional would be a reasonable > > solution - in reality the hassle that would create would is so huge > > that no sane person would want to implement the packaging for something > > like that. > > > > Doing that for local use might not be too hard, but doing it 100% > > correct for a Debian release is simply not feasible. > > Can you clarify why this is not possible? The library names of ffmpeg > and libav now seem perfectly orthogonal and it seems to me it should be > possible to ship Jessie with both libav and ffmpeg if someone would be > willing to package the latter. As Antoine mentioned, with good intentions, it is possible to ship ffmpeg in Debian in time for the release of jessie. The problem is that there may not be as many good intentions and the wish to work jointly to make this happen, which is another matter completely (otherwise, why have the libav fork in the first place?). > It turns out that this is exactly what this bug report is about: we have > one brave soul that is volunteering for that effort. He has also clearly > stated why libav doesn't respond to his requirements. Indeed, some people say that I like to work on packaging some hard to crack packages (like handbrake, which required me to, essentially, patch the hell out of it to make it compile and work work with Debian's libav and to avoid the abundant use of embedded libraries; or the packaging of mongodb, which was, essentially, dormant for some time, with bazillion embedded libraries again, being used---it now has found some good hands to maintain it). Regarding libav, it really, really falls short on many places in comparison with ffmpeg. I can list features that it today, but they will be implemented (well, some not) and, then, ffmpeg will have moved on with further useful features that will be missing from libav and so on. > If you have objections against ffmpeg being packaged in Debian, I suggest > you clarify those instead of requiring Rogério to address the CTTE right > away, which seems to me a little abusive. Indeed, seeing the whole init system decision (which I have been following *every* single day quietly), I can only think that some (not all) can not really judge the technical merits of some software. Furthermore, technical excellence (even in the ideal case or in the more pragmatic sense of "well, it is not perfect, but it provides working features that people really *need*") is being left behind with the current decisions that Debian has taken. > Rogério, I would suggest you go ahead with the packaging and an upload, > don't let the flames fan your enthousiasm. Thanks for the encouragement, Antoine. I am mostly paralized with this situation and I don't really know how to proceed. I think that the forces of having to potentially fight the tech-ctte, the pkg-multimedia-team, the ftp-masters and some other people is that is preventing me right now from packaging ffmpeg all by myself. If other people join me in the work (and, most importantly, the argumentation---well, the ffmpeg upstream team has been wonderfully supportive of the initiative), then I may go on and package this thing. Thanks for the support, -- Rogério Brito : rbrito@{ime.usp.br,gmail.com} : GPG key 4096R/BCFCAAAA http://cynic.cc/blog/ : github.com/rbrito : profiles.google.com/rbrito DebianQA: http://qa.debian.org/developer.php?login=rbrito%40ime.usp.br

Message sent on to Rogério Brito <rbrito@ime.usp.br> :

Bug#729203. (Mon, 03 Feb 2014 22:18:08 GMT) (full text, mbox, link).

Information forwarded to debian-bugs-dist@lists.debian.org, wnpp@debian.org :

Bug#729203 ; Package wnpp . (Mon, 03 Feb 2014 22:27:04 GMT) (full text, mbox, link).

Acknowledgement sent to Adrian Bunk <bunk@stusta.de> :

Extra info received and forwarded to list. Copy sent to wnpp@debian.org . (Mon, 03 Feb 2014 22:27:05 GMT) (full text, mbox, link).

Message #226 received at 729203@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Adrian Bunk <bunk@stusta.de> To: Antoine Beaupré <anarcat@debian.org> Cc: 729203@bugs.debian.org, Rogério Brito <rbrito@ime.usp.br>, Lorenzo Sutton <lorenzofsutton@gmail.com> Subject: Re: Bug#729203: CTTE and reasonable solutions Date: Tue, 4 Feb 2014 00:25:40 +0200

On Mon, Feb 03, 2014 at 04:32:49PM -0500, Antoine Beaupré wrote: > On 2014-02-03 16:22:38, Adrian Bunk wrote: >... > > But if someone wants, as Lorenzo suggested, an "apt-get install ffmpeg" > > to magically switch all applications like VLC from using libav to > > ffmpeg, then one of the requirements for that would clearly be that > > there would have to be two versions of all binaries and libraries > > using libav/ffmpeg in the archive - one compiled with libav, and > > one compiled with ffmpeg. > > I reread Lorenzo's email, and it doesn't actually say "switch all > applications like VLC from libav to ffmpeg". > > He just said: > > > users should be able to do > > > > apt-get install ffmpeg > > > > or > > > > apr-get install libav > > I think some people here are talking about using ffmpeg as a > commandline-based conversion tool, not necessarily the way you are > bringing up, as a library that (say) vlc is linking against. Before what you quote he said in the same email: Agree with many on at least providing the *option* for users to have the original ffmpeg instead of libav There is no libav program, and he is clearly talking about the libraries. > > That would be technically insane, and politically impossible unless > > CTTE (or a GR) would override the likely veto from the Debian multimedia > > maintainers for doing that in any of the packages they maintain. > > Then maybe this RFP can focus on providing the ffmpeg binary again and > not necessarily get into replacing libav altogether, which I think was > the original intention here, hence my original email. :) No. Rogério is listing in the initial email in this RFP many reasons for the ffmpeg libraries. But he never mentions anything related to the ffmpeg commandline programs. Or are you seriously saying chromium would use the ffmpeg commandline programs? The ffmpeg/libav commandline programs are relatively rarely used - what is used heavily on Linux are the libraries. > Cheers, > > A. cu Adrian -- "Is there not promise of rain?" Ling Tan asked suddenly out of the darkness. There had been need of rain for many days. "Only a promise," Lao Er said. Pearl S. Buck - Dragon Seed

Information forwarded to debian-bugs-dist@lists.debian.org, wnpp@debian.org :

Bug#729203 ; Package wnpp . (Mon, 03 Feb 2014 22:54:04 GMT) (full text, mbox, link).

Acknowledgement sent to Adrian Bunk <bunk@stusta.de> :

Extra info received and forwarded to list. Copy sent to wnpp@debian.org . (Mon, 03 Feb 2014 22:54:04 GMT) (full text, mbox, link).

Message #231 received at 729203@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Adrian Bunk <bunk@stusta.de> To: Rogério Brito <rbrito@ime.usp.br> Cc: anarcat <anarcat@debian.org>, 729203@bugs.debian.org, 729203-submitter@bugs.debian.org Subject: Re: CTTE and reasonable solutions Date: Tue, 4 Feb 2014 00:50:32 +0200

On Mon, Feb 03, 2014 at 08:13:43PM -0200, Rogério Brito wrote: >... > > Rogério, I would suggest you go ahead with the packaging and an upload, > > don't let the flames fan your enthousiasm. > > Thanks for the encouragement, Antoine. I am mostly paralized with this > situation and I don't really know how to proceed. I think that the forces of > having to potentially fight the tech-ctte, the pkg-multimedia-team, the > ftp-masters and some other people is that is preventing me right now from > packaging ffmpeg all by myself. > > If other people join me in the work (and, most importantly, the > argumentation---well, the ffmpeg upstream team has been wonderfully > supportive of the initiative), then I may go on and package this thing. >... You do know that ffmpeg and gazillions of programs like vlc and handbrake compiled against ffmpeg are already packaged in the usual external repository? cu Adrian -- "Is there not promise of rain?" Ling Tan asked suddenly out of the darkness. There had been need of rain for many days. "Only a promise," Lao Er said. Pearl S. Buck - Dragon Seed

Message sent on to Rogério Brito <rbrito@ime.usp.br> :

Bug#729203. (Mon, 03 Feb 2014 22:54:07 GMT) (full text, mbox, link).

Information forwarded to debian-bugs-dist@lists.debian.org, wnpp@debian.org :

Bug#729203 ; Package wnpp . (Mon, 03 Feb 2014 23:03:04 GMT) (full text, mbox, link).

Acknowledgement sent to Antoine Beaupré <anarcat@debian.org> :

Extra info received and forwarded to list. Copy sent to wnpp@debian.org . (Mon, 03 Feb 2014 23:03:04 GMT) (full text, mbox, link).

Message #239 received at 729203@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Antoine Beaupré <anarcat@debian.org> To: Adrian Bunk <bunk@stusta.de> Cc: 729203@bugs.debian.org, Rogério Brito <rbrito@ime.usp.br>, Lorenzo Sutton <lorenzofsutton@gmail.com> Subject: Re: Bug#729203: CTTE and reasonable solutions Date: Mon, 03 Feb 2014 17:58:48 -0500

On 2014-02-03 17:25:40, Adrian Bunk wrote: > Before what you quote he said in the same email: > Agree with many on at least providing the *option* for users to have > the original ffmpeg instead of libav > > There is no libav program, and he is clearly talking about the libraries. I assumed libav included programs, and that is also what the wikipedia article says. But maybe lorenzo can tell better what he meant than us. I certainly mean that we could provide the program. >> > That would be technically insane, and politically impossible unless >> > CTTE (or a GR) would override the likely veto from the Debian multimedia >> > maintainers for doing that in any of the packages they maintain. >> >> Then maybe this RFP can focus on providing the ffmpeg binary again and >> not necessarily get into replacing libav altogether, which I think was >> the original intention here, hence my original email. :) > > No. > > Rogério is listing in the initial email in this RFP many reasons for the > ffmpeg libraries. But he never mentions anything related to the ffmpeg > commandline programs. He did mention he wanted to package ffmpeg as a replacement of libav, I stand corrected. > Or are you seriously saying chromium would use the ffmpeg > commandline programs? Now where did I ever mention chrome? > The ffmpeg/libav commandline programs are relatively rarely used - what > is used heavily on Linux are the libraries. I guess my use case is different then. Certainly there's a use case for the ffmpeg program just working properly in the first place. Taking a step back, there seems to be a lot of frustrations flying around that issue, maybe it would be better to keep an open mind and try to fix issues here. One of the proposals on the table is to bring back ffmpeg, at least as a program, possibly as a library. You seem to be saying that is "insane", but I fail to see the technical reasons behind that argument, other than debian-multimedia "vetoing" it. Maybe that discussion should be taken there then? I see there was one email about ffmpeg on the mailing list about a month ago, without any response, but that's all... What's your proposal to fix the problems with libav mentionned in this thread? What's your response to the claims that ffmpeg is a superset of libav and that libav is lagging in development? If ffmpeg is technically superior and compatible with libav, why shouldn't we package it? I feel there's a knee-jerk reaction against the inclusion of ffmpeg here, and I don't understand the technical reasons for that. Certainly we could offer ffmpeg as a replacement (Conflicts: Replaces:) of libav and people could choose between the two, especially if libav is such a drop-in replacement for packages that depend on ffmpeg... I think any Debian Developper is perfectly entitled to work on a ffmpeg package, upload it to new and let the FTP masters decide what to do with it. Now of course to make other packages use its libraries is a matter that should be left to those other package's maintainers, that's a different story, and not the topic of this RFP, from what I understand. A. -- To be naive and easily deceived is impermissible, today more than ever, when the prevailing untruths may lead to a catastrophe because they blind people to real dangers and real possibilities. - Erich Fromm

Information forwarded to debian-bugs-dist@lists.debian.org, wnpp@debian.org :

Bug#729203 ; Package wnpp . (Mon, 03 Feb 2014 23:12:08 GMT) (full text, mbox, link).

Acknowledgement sent to Antoine Beaupré <anarcat@debian.org> :

Extra info received and forwarded to list. Copy sent to wnpp@debian.org . (Mon, 03 Feb 2014 23:12:08 GMT) (full text, mbox, link).

Message #244 received at 729203@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Antoine Beaupré <anarcat@debian.org> To: Rogério Brito <rbrito@ime.usp.br> Cc: 729203@bugs.debian.org, Adrian Bunk <bunk@stusta.de>, 729203-submitter@bugs.debian.org Subject: Re: CTTE and reasonable solutions Date: Mon, 03 Feb 2014 18:08:45 -0500

On 2014-02-03 17:13:43, Rogério Brito wrote: >> Rogério, I would suggest you go ahead with the packaging and an upload, >> don't let the flames fan your enthousiasm. > > Thanks for the encouragement, Antoine. I am mostly paralized with this > situation and I don't really know how to proceed. I think that the forces of > having to potentially fight the tech-ctte, the pkg-multimedia-team, the > ftp-masters and some other people is that is preventing me right now from > packaging ffmpeg all by myself. I am not sure you should fight anyone here. Do the package, may it policy-clean and it will pass NEW. If someone wants to bring up something with the ctte, they can do it, but you don't have to right now. Having a discussion on pkg-multimedia may be necessary if other package dependencies should be changed, and it is probably good practice to discuss this topic on that mailing list, but it seems to me that people shouldn't object to the inclusion of another package in debian solely on the ground that they do not like it. If both packages are ABI-compatible, then ffmpeg can be designed as a drop-in replacement for libav and users will be free to choose. We have a policy for such procedures. Our social contract also says we should respond to the needs of users, and the overwhelming majority of people on this issue have voiced their need for a working ffmpeg implementation in Debian. We should respond to that. A. -- From the age of uniformity, from the age of solitude, from the age of Big Brother, from the age of doublethink - greetings! - Winston Smith, 1984

Information forwarded to debian-bugs-dist@lists.debian.org, wnpp@debian.org :

Bug#729203 ; Package wnpp . (Mon, 03 Feb 2014 23:12:11 GMT) (full text, mbox, link).

Acknowledgement sent to Antoine Beaupré <anarcat@debian.org> :

Extra info received and forwarded to list. Copy sent to wnpp@debian.org . (Mon, 03 Feb 2014 23:12:11 GMT) (full text, mbox, link).

Message #249 received at 729203@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Antoine Beaupré <anarcat@debian.org> To: Adrian Bunk <bunk@stusta.de> Cc: 729203@bugs.debian.org, Rogério Brito <rbrito@ime.usp.br>, Lorenzo Sutton <lorenzofsutton@gmail.com> Subject: Re: Bug#729203: CTTE and reasonable solutions Date: Mon, 03 Feb 2014 18:09:45 -0500

On 2014-02-03 17:58:48, Antoine Beaupré wrote: > I see there was one email about ffmpeg on the mailing list > about a month ago, without any response, but that's all... I was talking about the deprecated debian-multimedia, my bad. A. -- The Net treats censorship as damage and routes around it. - John Gilmore

Message sent on to Rogério Brito <rbrito@ime.usp.br> :

Bug#729203. (Mon, 03 Feb 2014 23:12:14 GMT) (full text, mbox, link).

Information forwarded to debian-bugs-dist@lists.debian.org, wnpp@debian.org :

Bug#729203 ; Package wnpp . (Mon, 03 Feb 2014 23:24:04 GMT) (full text, mbox, link).

Acknowledgement sent to Adrian Bunk <bunk@stusta.de> :

Extra info received and forwarded to list. Copy sent to wnpp@debian.org . (Mon, 03 Feb 2014 23:24:04 GMT) (full text, mbox, link).

Message #257 received at 729203@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Adrian Bunk <bunk@stusta.de> To: Antoine Beaupré <anarcat@debian.org> Cc: 729203@bugs.debian.org, Rogério Brito <rbrito@ime.usp.br>, Lorenzo Sutton <lorenzofsutton@gmail.com> Subject: Re: Bug#729203: CTTE and reasonable solutions Date: Tue, 4 Feb 2014 01:21:34 +0200

On Mon, Feb 03, 2014 at 05:58:48PM -0500, Antoine Beaupré wrote: > On 2014-02-03 17:25:40, Adrian Bunk wrote: >... > >> Then maybe this RFP can focus on providing the ffmpeg binary again and > >> not necessarily get into replacing libav altogether, which I think was > >> the original intention here, hence my original email. :) > > > > No. > > > > Rogério is listing in the initial email in this RFP many reasons for the > > ffmpeg libraries. But he never mentions anything related to the ffmpeg > > commandline programs. > > He did mention he wanted to package ffmpeg as a replacement of libav, I > stand corrected. > > > Or are you seriously saying chromium would use the ffmpeg > > commandline programs? > > Now where did I ever mention chrome? You were claiming the original intention of this RFP was to provide the ffmpeg binary again. Since the original intention of this RFP that you were referring to listed chromium, that implies that you were saying that chromium would use the commandline tools. >... > One of the proposals on the table is to bring back ffmpeg, at least as a > program, possibly as a library. You seem to be saying that is "insane", >... I would appreciate if you would in the future refrain from wrongly claiming that I said something, when I did in fact state the opposite: <-- snip --> If all you expect to happen after "apt-get install ffmpeg" is that there is an ffmpeg binary that is using the ffmpeg libraries, then this might be doable. <-- snip --> > but I fail to see the technical reasons behind that argument, other than > debian-multimedia "vetoing" it. Maybe that discussion should be taken > there then? I see there was one email about ffmpeg on the mailing list > about a month ago, without any response, but that's all... You do know the relevant history? > What's your proposal to fix the problems with libav mentionned in this > thread? What's your response to the claims that ffmpeg is a superset of > libav and that libav is lagging in development? If ffmpeg is technically > superior and compatible with libav, why shouldn't we package it? All I am saying is that suggestiong along the lines of having both the libav and ffmpeg libraries and then switching between them through "apt-get install" is insane. If you disagree with the Debian Multimedia Maintainers on which to use in jessie, the conflict resolution process is in the Debian Constitution. > I feel there's a knee-jerk reaction against the inclusion of ffmpeg > here, and I don't understand the technical reasons for that. Certainly > we could offer ffmpeg as a replacement (Conflicts: Replaces:) of libav > and people could choose between the two, especially if libav is such a > drop-in replacement for packages that depend on ffmpeg... What part of the technical reason "a binary/library compiled against a library cannot be used with a version of this library with a different soname" don't you understand? > I think any Debian Developper is perfectly entitled to work on a ffmpeg > package, upload it to new and let the FTP masters decide what to do with > it. Now of course to make other packages use its libraries is a matter > that should be left to those other package's maintainers, that's a > different story, and not the topic of this RFP, from what I understand. You already agreed that your claim "The library names of ffmpeg and libav now seem perfectly orthogonal" is not true. That is a mess, and would have to be sorted out by the Debian libav and ffmpeg maintainers before such an upload could happen. > A. cu Adrian -- "Is there not promise of rain?" Ling Tan asked suddenly out of the darkness. There had been need of rain for many days. "Only a promise," Lao Er said. Pearl S. Buck - Dragon Seed

Information forwarded to debian-bugs-dist@lists.debian.org, wnpp@debian.org :

Bug#729203 ; Package wnpp . (Mon, 03 Feb 2014 23:39:09 GMT) (full text, mbox, link).

Acknowledgement sent to Jan Larres <jan@majutsushi.net> :

Extra info received and forwarded to list. Copy sent to wnpp@debian.org . (Mon, 03 Feb 2014 23:39:09 GMT) (full text, mbox, link).

Message #262 received at 729203@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Jan Larres <jan@majutsushi.net> To: Antoine Beaupré <anarcat@debian.org>, 729203@bugs.debian.org, Rogério Brito <rbrito@ime.usp.br> Cc: Adrian Bunk <bunk@stusta.de>, 729203-submitter@bugs.debian.org Subject: Re: Bug#729203: CTTE and reasonable solutions Date: Tue, 04 Feb 2014 12:23:37 +1300

On 04/02/14 12:08, Antoine Beaupré wrote: > If both packages are ABI-compatible, then ffmpeg can be designed as a > drop-in replacement for libav and users will be free to choose. As far as I understand it the problem is that it is *not* a drop-in replacement as far as the libraries are concerned, every package needs to be recompiled depending on which library should be used. So you would need two different packages for every program that uses the libraries if you wanted to offer both in parallel. And I don't think Adrian (or anyone else) is against ffmpeg as such, it's just that there should be made a decision which one to use in order to avoid these issues. Jan

Message sent on to Rogério Brito <rbrito@ime.usp.br> :

Bug#729203. (Mon, 03 Feb 2014 23:39:12 GMT) (full text, mbox, link).

Information forwarded to debian-bugs-dist@lists.debian.org, wnpp@debian.org :

Bug#729203 ; Package wnpp . (Tue, 04 Feb 2014 00:18:04 GMT) (full text, mbox, link).

Acknowledgement sent to Antoine Beaupré <anarcat@debian.org> :

Extra info received and forwarded to list. Copy sent to wnpp@debian.org . (Tue, 04 Feb 2014 00:18:04 GMT) (full text, mbox, link).

Message #270 received at 729203@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Antoine Beaupré <anarcat@debian.org> To: Adrian Bunk <bunk@stusta.de> Cc: 729203@bugs.debian.org, Rogério Brito <rbrito@ime.usp.br>, Lorenzo Sutton <lorenzofsutton@gmail.com> Subject: Re: Bug#729203: CTTE and reasonable solutions Date: Mon, 03 Feb 2014 19:13:57 -0500

On 2014-02-03 18:21:34, Adrian Bunk wrote: > On Mon, Feb 03, 2014 at 05:58:48PM -0500, Antoine Beaupré wrote: >> On 2014-02-03 17:25:40, Adrian Bunk wrote: >>... > Since the original intention of this RFP that you were referring to > listed chromium, that implies that you were saying that chromium > would use the commandline tools. I obviously wasn't saying that. I also stated above "I stand corrected", what else do you need here? >> One of the proposals on the table is to bring back ffmpeg, at least as a >> program, possibly as a library. You seem to be saying that is "insane", >>... > > I would appreciate if you would in the future refrain from wrongly > claiming that I said something, when I did in fact state the opposite: > > <-- snip --> > > If all you expect to happen after "apt-get install ffmpeg" is that > there is an ffmpeg binary that is using the ffmpeg libraries, then > this might be doable. > > <-- snip --> I am refering to your position which you restate below.... >> but I fail to see the technical reasons behind that argument, other than >> debian-multimedia "vetoing" it. Maybe that discussion should be taken >> there then? I see there was one email about ffmpeg on the mailing list >> about a month ago, without any response, but that's all... > > You do know the relevant history? I am familiar with the fork, yes. However, things change and it seems that ffmpeg has picked up a lot of speed since the fork. Maybe it's time to reopen that discussion? Or maybe not, considering how this is going so far... >> What's your proposal to fix the problems with libav mentionned in this >> thread? What's your response to the claims that ffmpeg is a superset of >> libav and that libav is lagging in development? If ffmpeg is technically >> superior and compatible with libav, why shouldn't we package it? > > All I am saying is that suggestiong along the lines of having both the > libav and ffmpeg libraries and then switching between them through > "apt-get install" is insane. I do not see any answer to the technical questions I have asked above. I also do not see why this proposal is inherently "insane". > If you disagree with the Debian Multimedia Maintainers on which to use > in jessie, the conflict resolution process is in the Debian Constitution. I am aware of the constitution as well, thanks. I wasn't aware I was in a conflict resolution process already, I was trying to get information about the situation. Things escalate quick around here don't they? :) >> I feel there's a knee-jerk reaction against the inclusion of ffmpeg >> here, and I don't understand the technical reasons for that. Certainly >> we could offer ffmpeg as a replacement (Conflicts: Replaces:) of libav >> and people could choose between the two, especially if libav is such a >> drop-in replacement for packages that depend on ffmpeg... > > What part of the technical reason "a binary/library compiled against > a library cannot be used with a version of this library with a different > soname" don't you understand? Well, that's one answer, thanks. I was under the understanding that ffmpeg was trying to keep backwards compatibility with libav, I guess that is all much clearer now. One thing I don't understand is how difficult this conversation feels for me right now. Maybe it's just me, but I was just looking at an offer to work on ffmpeg in Debian by a volunteer, and this is turning out to be a difficult conversation, what happened? >> I think any Debian Developper is perfectly entitled to work on a ffmpeg >> package, upload it to new and let the FTP masters decide what to do with >> it. Now of course to make other packages use its libraries is a matter >> that should be left to those other package's maintainers, that's a >> different story, and not the topic of this RFP, from what I understand. > > You already agreed that your claim "The library names of ffmpeg and > libav now seem perfectly orthogonal" is not true. I fail to understand what that statement brings to the conversation. Does that make me a bad person? :P > That is a mess, and would have to be sorted out by the Debian libav and > ffmpeg maintainers before such an upload could happen. That would be great! I support such an initiative. I'm glad we agree. A. -- Antoine Beaupré +++ Réseau Koumbit Networks +++ +1.514.387.6262 #208 --------------------------------------------------------------------

Information forwarded to debian-bugs-dist@lists.debian.org, wnpp@debian.org :

Bug#729203 ; Package wnpp . (Tue, 04 Feb 2014 00:18:08 GMT) (full text, mbox, link).

Acknowledgement sent to Timothy Gu <timothygu99@gmail.com> :

Extra info received and forwarded to list. Copy sent to wnpp@debian.org . (Tue, 04 Feb 2014 00:18:08 GMT) (full text, mbox, link).

Message #275 received at 729203@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Timothy Gu <timothygu99@gmail.com> To: 729203@bugs.debian.org Subject: Fwd: Re: Bug#729203: CTTE and reasonable solutions Date: Mon, 3 Feb 2014 16:14:34 -0800

Sorry, forgot to CC bug tracker... ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: "Timothy Gu" <timothygu99@gmail.com> Date: Feb 3, 2014 3:28 PM Subject: Re: Bug#729203: CTTE and reasonable solutions To: "Antoine Beaupré" <anarcat@debian.org> Cc: On Feb 3, 2014 3:12 PM, "Antoine Beaupré" <anarcat@debian.org> wrote: > > On 2014-02-03 17:13:43, Rogério Brito wrote: > >> Rogério, I would suggest you go ahead with the packaging and an upload, > >> don't let the flames fan your enthousiasm. > > > > Thanks for the encouragement, Antoine. I am mostly paralized with this > > situation and I don't really know how to proceed. I think that the forces of > > having to potentially fight the tech-ctte, the pkg-multimedia-team, the > > ftp-masters and some other people is that is preventing me right now from > > packaging ffmpeg all by myself. > > I am not sure you should fight anyone here. Do the package, may it > policy-clean and it will pass NEW. > > If someone wants to bring up something with the ctte, they can do it, > but you don't have to right now. > > Having a discussion on pkg-multimedia may be necessary if other package > dependencies should be changed, and it is probably good practice to > discuss this topic on that mailing list, but it seems to me that people > shouldn't object to the inclusion of another package in debian solely on > the ground that they do not like it. > > If both packages are ABI-compatible, then ffmpeg can be designed as a > drop-in replacement for libav and users will be free to choose. Mostly, but even with FFmpeg's attempt, not entirely IIRC. I tried to use abi-compliance-checker once, but failed, and i didnt have much time to delve into how to use it. Also Debian's very own ABI checking program icheck has some bugs, ironically, on testing FFmpeg http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=427461. > > We have a policy for such procedures. Our social contract also says we > should respond to the needs of users, and the overwhelming majority of > people on this issue have voiced their need for a working ffmpeg > implementation in Debian. We should respond to that. Exactly. [...] Timothy

Information forwarded to debian-bugs-dist@lists.debian.org, wnpp@debian.org :

Bug#729203 ; Package wnpp . (Tue, 04 Feb 2014 00:18:11 GMT) (full text, mbox, link).

Acknowledgement sent to Timothy Gu <timothygu99@gmail.com> :

Extra info received and forwarded to list. Copy sent to wnpp@debian.org . (Tue, 04 Feb 2014 00:18:11 GMT) (full text, mbox, link).

Message #280 received at 729203@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Timothy Gu <timothygu99@gmail.com> To: 729203@bugs.debian.org Subject: Fwd: Re: Bug#729203: CTTE and reasonable solutions Date: Mon, 3 Feb 2014 16:14:47 -0800

Sorry, forgot to CC bug tracker... ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: "Timothy Gu" <timothygu99@gmail.com> Date: Feb 3, 2014 3:32 PM Subject: Re: Bug#729203: CTTE and reasonable solutions To: "Adrian Bunk" <bunk@stusta.de> Cc: On Feb 3, 2014 3:24 PM, "Adrian Bunk" <bunk@stusta.de> wrote: > That is a mess, and would have to be sorted out by the Debian libav and > ffmpeg maintainers before such an upload could happen. Agreed. But not exactly sure whether pkg-multimedia would want to collaborate... Timothy

Information forwarded to debian-bugs-dist@lists.debian.org, wnpp@debian.org :

Bug#729203 ; Package wnpp . (Tue, 04 Feb 2014 00:18:14 GMT) (full text, mbox, link).

Acknowledgement sent to Timothy Gu <timothygu99@gmail.com> :

Extra info received and forwarded to list. Copy sent to wnpp@debian.org . (Tue, 04 Feb 2014 00:18:14 GMT) (full text, mbox, link).

Message #285 received at 729203@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Timothy Gu <timothygu99@gmail.com> To: 729203@bugs.debian.org Subject: Fwd: Re: Bug#729203: CTTE and reasonable solutions Date: Mon, 3 Feb 2014 16:15:07 -0800

Sorry, forgot to CC bug tracker... ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: "Timothy Gu" <timothygu99@gmail.com> Date: Feb 3, 2014 3:56 PM Subject: Re: Bug#729203: CTTE and reasonable solutions To: "Jan Larres" <jan@majutsushi.net> Cc: > > On Feb 3, 2014 3:39 PM, "Jan Larres" <jan@majutsushi.net> wrote: > > > > On 04/02/14 12:08, Antoine Beaupré wrote: > > > If both packages are ABI-compatible, then ffmpeg can be designed as a > > > drop-in replacement for libav and users will be free to choose. > > > > As far as I understand it the problem is that it is *not* a drop-in > > replacement as far as the libraries are concerned, every package needs > > to be recompiled depending on which library should be used. So you would > > need two different packages for every program that uses the libraries if > > you wanted to offer both in parallel. And I don't think Adrian (or > > anyone else) is against ffmpeg as such, it's just that there should be > > made a decision which one to use in order to avoid these issues. > > It's not as bad as you think. FFmpeg has a --enable-libav-incompatible-abi configure option. Didn't test the effectiveness of it though. > > Timothy > > > > > Jan > > > > -- > > To unsubscribe, send mail to 729203-unsubscribe@bugs.debian.org.

Information forwarded to debian-bugs-dist@lists.debian.org, wnpp@debian.org :

Bug#729203 ; Package wnpp . (Tue, 04 Feb 2014 10:03:09 GMT) (full text, mbox, link).

Acknowledgement sent to Lorenzo Sutton <lorenzofsutton@gmail.com> :

Extra info received and forwarded to list. Copy sent to wnpp@debian.org . (Tue, 04 Feb 2014 10:03:09 GMT) (full text, mbox, link).

Message #290 received at 729203@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Lorenzo Sutton <lorenzofsutton@gmail.com> To: Adrian Bunk <bunk@stusta.de>, Antoine Beaupré <anarcat@debian.org> Cc: 729203@bugs.debian.org, Rogério Brito <rbrito@ime.usp.br> Subject: Re: Bug#729203: CTTE and reasonable solutions Date: Tue, 04 Feb 2014 10:59:50 +0100

On 03/02/2014 23:25, Adrian Bunk wrote: > On Mon, Feb 03, 2014 at 04:32:49PM -0500, Antoine Beaupré wrote: >> On 2014-02-03 16:22:38, Adrian Bunk wrote: >> ... >>> But if someone wants, as Lorenzo suggested, an "apt-get install ffmpeg" >>> to magically switch all applications like VLC from using libav to >>> ffmpeg, then one of the requirements for that would clearly be that >>> there would have to be two versions of all binaries and libraries >>> using libav/ffmpeg in the archive - one compiled with libav, and >>> one compiled with ffmpeg. >> >> I reread Lorenzo's email, and it doesn't actually say "switch all >> applications like VLC from libav to ffmpeg". >> >> He just said: >> >>> users should be able to do >>> >>> apt-get install ffmpeg >>> >>> or >>> >>> apr-get install libav >> >> I think some people here are talking about using ffmpeg as a >> commandline-based conversion tool, not necessarily the way you are >> bringing up, as a library that (say) vlc is linking against. That's what I meant in my message. I'm referrig to ffmpeg vs. avconv - I should probably have written: apt-get install libav-tools to make it more clear. > > Before what you quote he said in the same email: > Agree with many on at least providing the *option* for users to have > the original ffmpeg instead of libav > > There is no libav program, and he is clearly talking about the libraries. Actually I meant the binary. I guess lots of the confusion (at least from a users' point of view) comes from the fact that the description of the ffmpeg package states: " Libav is a complete, cross-platform solution to decode, encode, record, convert and stream audio and video. This package contains the deprecated ffmpeg program. This package also serves as a transitional package to libav-tools. Users are advised to use avconv from the libav-tools package i