libav and FFmpeg: switch over

[Andreas Cadhalpun]

Hi Reinhard,

On 11.07.2015 15:01, Reinhard Tartler wrote:
> Keeping the libavcodec-extra packages makes very much sense to me, thank you.

:-)

> Do you need help with uploading to experiemental?

If you want to, you could make the upload to experimental.
I guess Bálint would be happy to do it, as well.

> As soon as it is in experimental, we can start with filing bugs tracking FTBFS
> issues in application packages.

I've already filed all that I'm aware of, see [1]. Though some new ones might
have creeped in since my last rebuild.

> As usual, I'd suggest tracking them with usertags,
> so that you can point to a dynamic list of todo items in the transition bug.

Only #790356 in gst-libav1.0 (and, as always, taoframework) is caused by the
transition. I'm not sure usertagging the unrelated bugs makes sense.

> The release team is likely to insist that only if all bugs for packages that
> are in testing have been addressed before allowing to upload to unstable.

Fixing these would be nice, but since they are not related to the libav* libraries,
I've not much clue how to fix any of them. If the maintainers can't fix them
either, these packages will have to be removed from testing anyway, independently
of the transition to FFmpeg.

> Regarding src:libav, I see little point in keeping it, so yes, let's just request
> its removal when nothing depends on it anymore.

OK, fine for me.

Though I'm wondering now, if it wouldn't be better to also take over the libav-tools
binary package (instead of the libav-tools-links package), so that existing
installations of libav-tools get migrated to ffmpeg.

The libav-tools-links only 'Provides: libav-tools' so that dependencies can be satisfied,
but since apt prefers real packages over virtual ones, it would affect existing
libav-tools installations.

What do you think?

Best regards,
Andreas

1: https://wiki.debian.org/Debate/libav-provider/ffmpeg#The_Library_Transition