[FFmpeg-devel] Reintroducing FFmpeg to Debian

Andreas Cadhalpun andreas.cadhalpun at googlemail.com
Sun Aug 17 00:49:14 CEST 2014


On 16.08.2014 17:49, Pau Garcia i Quiles wrote:
> On Sat, Aug 16, 2014 at 5:30 PM, Nicolas George <george at nsup.org
> <mailto:george at nsup.org>> wrote:
>     The only option is to make sure the users do not suffer from the
>     fork, by
>     making sure they can easily use the version that is most suited for
>     their
>     need without being sucked into the developers' disagreements.
> Can we get back on topic?

Yes. I have now sent the pkg-config patches to the BTS [1].

> With or without libav in Debian, there are solid technical reasons to
> have ffmpeg in Debian. We have both GraphicsMagick and ImageMagick
> (although they parted ways in a civilized way: different library names),
> and we certainly have a ton of librarys which provide very similar features.

This is also my point of view.

> Since before the fork, the libav developers have been sabotaging ffmpeg
> as much as possible, in every "combat field": library names, library
> versions, taking distributions hostage (ffmpeg package that installs
> libav!?), etc. This is not the way to fork anything. This is a fact.

It would be nice, if everyone, including you, would refrain from posting 
such flamebaits on debian-devel.
Please try to follow Debian's code of conduct [2].

> I don't care whether Michael Nidermayer was a dictator or not. I don't
> care whether the code-review rules in libav are better or worse. I don't
> care what the Linux kernel does. The only thing I care about is Debian
> is shipping a less-capable (i. e. less multimedia formats supported)
> distribution due to this conflict.
> This has to stop.
> ffmpeg is not yet in Debian due to the filename clashing, which will
> most certainly cause binary problems.

This is wrong, because the FFmpeg Debian packaging avoids filename 

> If libav and ffmpeg maintainers cannot reach an agreement regarding
> library names and it's not possible to simply use either ffmpeg or libav
> indistinctly due missing features binary compatibility, etc, the obvious
> solution is that BOTH libav and ffmpeg rename their libraries in Debian.
> E. g. libavcodec-ffmpeg.so and libavcodec-libav.so, etc.

This is already done in the FFmpeg Debian packages.

> Maybe even use
> alternatives to provide the binaries (ffmpeg, ffplay, etc). It's been
> done in the past.

This is not necessary, because the Libav binaries already have different 
names, avconv, avplay and so on.

> And before someone mentions it: I don't think it's too late. It's
> getting too late because nobody with the right to act is doing anything.
> In the end, our users are the ones being harmed and we are left
> wondering why they are increasingly moving to other distributions or Mac
> OS X.

Indeed it's getting late, because the FFmpeg package has been waiting in 
the NEW queue for more than 3 months.

Best regards,

2: https://www.debian.org/code_of_conduct

More information about the ffmpeg-devel mailing list