ffmpeg status?

[Reinhard Tartler]

Loïc Minier <lool at dooz.org> writes:

> On Mon, Jun 16, 2008, Reinhard Tartler wrote:
>> 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.
>
>  This is the Debian tree of ffmpeg because Debian requires to strip some
>  things of; is this clearer?  By Debian standards, I don't necessarily
>  mean "policy", I do mean all requirements such as the ones from
>  ftpmasters etc.

Okay, fair enough.

>> 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.
>
>  ffmpeg-restricted reminds me too much of the Ubuntu restricted
>  component; I don't think the rules of the restricted component of
>  Ubuntu are the rationale for this name, so we'd better avoid it (you
>  wouldn't want a ffmpeg-restricted in Ubuntu main or Ubuntu universe).

I see.

How about ffmpeg-limited, or ffmpeg-light?

>  I'm personally not in favor of renaming source packages which are
>  pulled from upstream project when we repack them, but I understand why
>  some people want to do this.  The usual names are often +dfsg, +repack,
>  or something similar, but in the end there are fundamentally two
>  approaches for the addition of a suffix:
>  a) expressing that you changed the tree
>  b) listing stuff which you changed
>
>  a) is basically saying "this is not the original upstream source";
>  typically +repack, +dfsg, etc. match this case

while +repack has a pretty neutral view, +dsfg gives a pretty strong
indication why the source has been touched. For the ffmpeg case, the
source is pretty much complying with the DFSG, there are no really
(known) license problems. It is really just because the ftpmaster fear
enforcments of patents.

>  b) is what we tried doing (IMO not very successfully) with ffmpeg:
>  ffmpeg-free, ffmpeg-non-free, ffmpeg-some-free-some-not-quite-so;
>  nowadays it becomes clearer that it's more something like
>  ffmpeg-noenforced-patents, but what if the rules change?  I don't want
>  source package names to be renamed over and over...

yeah, good point!

>  So instead of following b) which might be a moving definition, let us
>  just name the Debian ffmpeg tree ... ffmpeg-debian; I don't think it
>  can be clearer and it holds true even if the definition of what's
>  acceptable in Debian changes for the better or the worse.
>
>  Heck, what about the stuff which we will change or add in the future
>  which isn't related to patents at all?  This would also be considered
>  as Debian changes.

You raise very valid points. My main problem is that with -debian in the
name, it will remain a potentially difficult subject to talk with
upstream about.

I need to think a bit more about this.

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