[FFmpeg-devel] [libav-devel] [PATCH 0/20] removal of deprecated features
Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski
dominik at greysector.net
Fri Aug 7 19:28:26 CEST 2015
On Friday, 07 August 2015 at 15:36, wm4 wrote:
> On Thu, 6 Aug 2015 23:26:05 +0200
> Andreas Cadhalpun <andreas.cadhalpun at googlemail.com> wrote:
> > On 06.08.2015 00:53, wm4 wrote:
> > > Why do we have to suffer because Debian tries to compile ancient
> > > releases against newer ffmpeg/libav releases? (How does that even make
> > > sense?)
> > This is just your prejudice that doesn't have much to do with reality.
> I've had very much experience with distro reality. They tend to make
> everyone's life harder (including their own) by demanding that EVERY
> project uses the same libav* build.
Actually, speaking with my distro hat on, that's more or less the idea,
though I wouldn't say we (Fedora/RPMFusion) are demanding anything.
We do want to ship a single ffmpeg build per distro release and have
each depending project link against it. If that means
back/forward-porting code to adapt the other projects to API changes
then that's the package maintainer's job.
> Well, if you want to do this, you're free to do so. But it's not our
> problem. Feel free to put as much effort into it as you like.
Indeed. Though we may ask politely that FFmpeg project supports a given
ffmpeg release for the ~13 months of a given Fedora release lifecycle.
We would very much appreciate porting-to-new-API guides as that would
make providing patches to depending project upstreams a lot easier.
> > >> Better documentation would surely be helpful.
> > >
> > > Many of these are non-trivial. Project authors either update their
> > > code, or the project dies. It's simple. If you don't want this, keep an
> > > old ffmpeg/libav package around for them. But you distro peoples want a
> > > single libavcodec package, no matter how much this fucking tortures
> > > everyone.
> > So instead of keeping a little bit of deprecated code, everyone should
> > keep multiple copies of libavcodec?
> > This is several orders of magnitude worse.
> Why is it worse? Disk space is very cheap, and the libs aren't that big
> after all. But I know, you distro folks would rather waste a lot of
> time trying to make all projects use the same libs, instead of going
> the easy way.
Yes, we do. Once the initial porting work is done, we can fix security
issues and other bugs in one place, by updating one package. That's
a big maintenance win.
However, at least in Fedora, if a project can't be ported to current library
APIs (for example because it's dead) then we either drop it or introduce
a compat package with an older version of the library. There is strong
preference for the first option though.
> By the way, why the hell do I have to have two versions of Qt and 2
> versions of Python on my Debian system? These are much heavier than
You're right, but there are also much more users of Qt and Python
and there are (I think) much more extensive API changes between Qt 4 and
5, and between python-2.x and 3.x. They were also designed as parallel
installable from the beginning.
Dominik (FFmpeg (co-)maintainer in RPMFusion/Fedora)
MPlayer http://mplayerhq.hu | RPM Fusion http://rpmfusion.org
There should be a science of discontent. People need hard times and
oppression to develop psychic muscles.
-- from "Collected Sayings of Muad'Dib" by the Princess Irulan
More information about the ffmpeg-devel