Re: Updating F-20 to ffmpeg-2.2.11

On Qua, 2014-11-05 at 07:33 +0100, Julian Sikorski wrote: > W dniu 05.11.2014 o 03:55, Sérgio Basto pisze: >> On Dom, 2014-11-02 at 08:02 +0100, Julian Sikorski wrote: >>> W dniu 15.10.2014 o 07:42, Julian Sikorski pisze: >>>> W dniu 15.10.2014 o 00:38, Sérgio Basto pisze: >>>>> Hi, >>>>> >>>>> On Ter, 2014-10-07 at 08:02 +0200, Julian Sikorski wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>> Please be advised that 2.3 was recently removed from the maintained >>>>>> branches list: >>>>>> >>>>>> https://ffmpeg.org/pipermail/ffmpeg-devel/2014-September/162904.html >>>>>> >>>>>> Thus, if we ever rebase F-20, we should use 2.2 and not 2.3. >>>>> >>>>> The mode I like to work and to coordinate the mass rebuild for a stable >>>>> branch (F-20), is first be test in devel . We have packages in devel, we >>>>> test it for some time and when we can say that are stable , so we could >>>>> *copy* to F-20 , another point was: mass rebuild was for ffmpeg/x264 , >>>>> not only ffmpeg . >>>>> So it is important have .specs for packages that compile in all Fedora >>>>> releases. Having 2 trees, one for F20, other for devel , is just >>>>> justified when is a very core package like udev or systemd ... , but >>>>> for rpmfusion the point is other, maintainers are not aware ... >>>>> So *theoretically* my solution was build ffmpeg 2.2 in devel, test it >>>>> and copy to F-20 , but devel already have 2.3 so is not practical . >>>>> >>>>> Moving forward, just update "ffmpeg" on F20 seems to me acceptable , >>>>> like you wrote "only libavfilter has a soname bump (snip) This means >>>>> that we really only need to rebuild dvdstyler, mpv and xbmc." but we >>>>> miss the test phase, we need guarantee that ffmpeg version was tested , >>>>> any suggestion ? >>>> >>>> ffmpeg-2.2 was in devel between March and August. Moreover, the reason >>>> why upstream picked it over 2.3 was that it is used by more downstream >>>> distros: OpenSUSE, SUSE Enterprise and ROSA [1]. If we let it sit in >>>> -testing for a bit longer than usual, I believe this will be enough. >>>> >>>>> >>>>> Saying that and giving up mass rebuild ffmpeg/x264 for F-20, no need >>>>> preserve devel as is and we can do the mass rebuild for ffmpeg 2.4 on >>>>> devel , anything pending ? >>>> >>>> I don't think anything has changed since last time: dvbcut and >>>> kmediafactory fail to rebuild, vlc needs a patch, everything else builds >>>> fine. David Timms was working on making dvbcut work, but I have not >>>> heard from him regarding whether he was successful. >>>> >>>>> >>>>> BTW what packages (.spec) do you have ? that are different from stable >>>>> branches to devel ? >>>> >>>> Only ffmpeg and mplayer. ffmpeg due to its numerous dependencies, and >>>> mplayer because it is highly dependent on ffmpeg. >>>> >>>>> >>>>> Thanks and best regards, >>>>> >>>> >>>> Thank you. >>>> >>>> [1] https://trac.ffmpeg.org/wiki/Downstreams >>>> >>> Where do we stand on this? >> >> I don't change must what I wrote : >> "Update ffmpeg on F20 seems to me acceptable ,like you wrote "only >> libavfilter has a soname bump ... This means that we really only need to >> rebuild dvdstyler, mpv and xbmc." >> >> I think you should decide and we need authorization from kwizart .

>> >> you don't want rebuild others deps right ? >> >> >> cheers >> > I think we should go do it. 2.1 has not seen a release in months which > means there might be unfixed security issues in it. > I would only rebuild what we need to (dvdstyler, mpv and xbmc). yes , we can use security police , we need update ffmpeg to 2.2.10 on Fedora 20 , due security concerns . kwizart, may we do this update ?, we need your authorization, I will rebuild dvdstyler, mpv and xbmc . I'm going test it meanwhile . Thanks,