[Fedora-packaging] Re: Use of Internal Libraries

[Axel Thimm]

On Fri, Sep 19, 2008 at 08:09:15PM +0200, Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski wrote:
> On Friday, 19 September 2008 at 19:01, Axel Thimm wrote:
> > On Fri, Sep 19, 2008 at 02:59:22PM +0200, Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski wrote:
> > > On Friday, 19 September 2008 at 09:59, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
> > > > On Fri, 2008-09-19 at 10:34 +0300, Axel Thimm wrote:
> > > [...]
> > > > > Just to quote one such example: ffmpeg is a fast moving target, and
> > > > > any project depending on the lib API is cutting a checkout, patching
> > > > > it a up and using it for its own purposes. Replacing these internal
> > > > > ffmpegs with a system ffmpeg is a nightmare or even impossible w/o
> > > > > rewriting the app interface to it. Given that ffmpeg and friends fall
> > > > > under the patent forbidden class we don't see that directly in Fedora,
> > > > > but this issue is still out there.
> > > > Well, ffmpeg is a special case wrt. many issues. If they were doing a
> > > > proper job, they would release properly versioned packages with properly
> > > > versioned APIs, which could be installed in parallel.
> > > 
> > > They(we) don't have the manpower to do proper releases, but we do maintain
> > > properly versioned API/ABI. The position of a release manager for FFmpeg
> > > has been open for months. Many people complained, but nobody is willing
> > > to do the legwork.
> > 
> > Actually I did, you can read it up at the archives, but the ffmpeg
> > devs didn't think this would be a good idea. The only positive
> > comments were from other distribution packagers that would have even
> > joined the release team taskforce, but w/o the developers' blessing
> > (and at the very least a "do it now" assignment) there wasn't much we
> > could do.
> 
> I've just re-read that thread and AFAICT nobody said it wasn't a good idea.
> At least one developer offered to help. You even offered to prepare a release
> candidate but never did.

Please check the "ranks" of the developers, some of them were even
banned from ffmpeg, and how on earth could I prepare a release if the
developers decide not to allow for scm access?

No, the idea was silently dropped even though there were many
downstreams ready to pick it up (not only me).
-- 
Axel.Thimm at ATrpms.net
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 197 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://listman.redhat.com/archives/fedora-packaging/attachments/20080920/cbba8937/attachment.sig>