ffmpeg status?

[Reinhard Tartler]

Loïc Minier <lool at dooz.org> writes:

> On Mon, Jun 16, 2008, Reinhard Tartler wrote:
>> > Allright. Moreover I (AFAICT upstream, too) am happy with any other
>> > package name than 'ffmpeg-free'. ;)
>> 
>> Yes, I've spoken to Diego about this (CC'ed), and he even suggested the
>> name ffmpeg-restricted. Therefore I'd like to rename the source package
>> again on the next upload.
>> 
>> Everyone okay? (now would be a good time to object ;)
>
>  I'd rather have "ffmpeg-debian"; it makes it clear that we applied
>  Debian standards to the ffmpeg source and stops us from categorizing in
>  every possible way.

In what way did we apply 'Debian standards' to the package? In the past
we had a huge pile of patches not forwarded upstream, and nowadays we
make large parts of the software unusable. I don't really agree that
this is 'debian standard', at least it shouldn't be.

Or the other way round: the name would in some ways 'endorse' crippling
the package. This is something that is very difficult to communicate to
upstream, since they have a very different opinion to our ftpmaster team
on the patents matter. I had to invest quite some amount of energy to
convince e.g. Diego that I don't endorse this way of handling the
package at all, but that's still our best option we have. So we agreed
that naming it '-restricted' was to most honest way to go.

That's why I'm uncomfortable with 'ffmpeg-debian'.

-- 
Gruesse/greetings,
Reinhard Tartler, KeyID 945348A4