[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]
List: debian-devel
Subject: Re: Bug#729203: [FFmpeg-devel] Reintroducing FFmpeg to Debian
From: Pau Garcia i Quiles <pgquiles () elpauer ! org>
Date: 2014-07-31 23:50:26
Message-ID: CAKcBokspQtoJc1cHp7AOELu4fhRPiYGq_no2QoWqk=GygdUtzg () mail ! gmail ! com
[Download RAW message or body]
On Fri, Aug 1, 2014 at 1:29 AM, Russ Allbery <rra@debian.org> wrote:
> I personally don't have enough information to know why libav was chosen
> instead of FFmpeg, and the discussion on debian-devel so far has mostly
> come from FFmpeg advocates. So there's probably another side to the story
> that hasn't been stated here yet.
>
libav was not chosen in Debian
ffmpeg had a leadership crisis a few years ago: Michael Niedermaier (who
has written here) was accused of dictatorial methods by some ffmpeg
developers. I don't know if they were right or not in their complains and
frankly, I don't care.
Those guys tried a coup d'etat, stealing the domain, name, code repository,
logo and everything and leaving Michael out. When Michael was able to
recover control of some things, and get a new hosting, source repository,
etc, they forked ffmpeg in libav. The libav guys knowingly tried and still
try to break ffmpeg by using the same library names and for a long time,
version numbers too.
The Debian maintainer of ffmpeg at the time (Reinhard, who has written here
too) was one of the guys who took the libav side instead of the ffmpeg
side. He used the ffmpeg package names to provide libav, and actively
blocked any effort that would lead to src:ffmpeg being actual ffmpeg.org.
That's why we have libav now instead of ffmpeg.
I'm all for forks but if you do a fork, at least you do it with ethics:
different library names, sonames, etc. The libav developers have tried from
minute zero to create a conflict. And what has been the outcome of that? A
library which worse than ffmpeg in features, codec support, security, and
essentially everything. As someone mentioned way back in the thread, the
only people who seem to prefer libav over ffmpeg are the libav developers.
I am not involved in libav or ffmpeg and if libav would be better
technically, in security, etc, I would be all for libav, even with all the
ill-intented methods they used. But it's not the case: they disrupt
peaceful open source communities (see this discussion, it's not the first
time in Debian and it has happened in other distributions too) with what
goal?... forcing a worse library in technical regards? OMG. Pointless.
--
Pau Garcia i Quiles
http://www.elpauer.org
(Due to my workload, I may need 10 days to answer)
[Attachment #3 (text/html)]
<div dir="ltr"><br><div class="gmail_extra"><br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Fri, \
Aug 1, 2014 at 1:29 AM, Russ Allbery <span dir="ltr"><<a \
href="mailto:rra@debian.org" target="_blank">rra@debian.org</a>></span> wrote:<br>
<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc \
solid;padding-left:1ex"><div class=""> <br>
</div>I personally don't have enough information to know why libav was chosen<br>
instead of FFmpeg, and the discussion on debian-devel so far has mostly<br>
come from FFmpeg advocates. So there's probably another side to the story<br>
that hasn't been stated here yet.<br></blockquote><div><br></div><div>libav was \
not chosen in Debian<br><br></div><div>ffmpeg had a leadership crisis a few years \
ago: Michael Niedermaier (who has written here) was accused of dictatorial methods \
by some ffmpeg developers. I don't know if they were right or not in their \
complains and frankly, I don't care. <br>
<br>Those guys tried a coup d'etat, stealing the domain, name, code repository, \
logo and everything and leaving Michael out. When Michael was able to recover \
control of some things, and get a new hosting, source repository, etc, they forked \
ffmpeg in libav. The libav guys knowingly tried and still try to break ffmpeg by \
using the same library names and for a long time, version numbers too. <br>
<br>The Debian maintainer of ffmpeg at the time (Reinhard, who has written here too) \
was one of the guys who took the libav side instead of the ffmpeg side. He used the \
ffmpeg package names to provide libav, and actively blocked any effort that would \
lead to src:ffmpeg being actual <a href="http://ffmpeg.org">ffmpeg.org</a>. \
That's why we have libav now instead of ffmpeg.<br>
<br></div><div>I'm all for forks but if you do a fork, at least you do it with \
ethics: different library names, sonames, etc. The libav developers have tried from \
minute zero to create a conflict. And what has been the outcome of that? A library \
which worse than ffmpeg in features, codec support, security, and essentially \
everything. As someone mentioned way back in the thread, the only people who seem to \
prefer libav over ffmpeg are the libav developers.<br>
<br></div><div>I am not involved in libav or ffmpeg and if libav would be better \
technically, in security, etc, I would be all for libav, even with all the \
ill-intented methods they used. But it's not the case: they disrupt peaceful open \
source communities (see this discussion, it's not the first time in Debian and it \
has happened in other distributions too) with what goal?... forcing a worse library \
in technical regards? OMG. Pointless.<br>
</div></div><br clear="all"><br>-- <br>Pau Garcia i Quiles<br><a \
href="http://www.elpauer.org">http://www.elpauer.org</a><br>(Due to my workload, I \
may need 10 days to answer) </div></div>
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Archive: https://lists.debian.org/CAKcBokspQtoJc1cHp7AOELu4fhRPiYGq_no2QoWqk=GygdUtzg@mail.gmail.com
[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]
Configure |
About |
News |
Add a list |
Sponsored by KoreLogic