On 10/11/2016 07:49 PM, Sérgio Basto wrote: > > the mailing list". > > I hope have one decision, quickly and close this subject (update > ffmpeg > in F24 to 3.1.x ? ). This is not ideal. The ffmpeg 3.0.x branch is not going unmaintained AFAIK. We can't  push out a big rebuild of a major library so one, new package can be introduced into  F24. In any case I tested Kodi 16 against ffmpeg 3.1 and it works fine. The only problem  I see is that you pushed the master/F25 kodi branch (Kodi 17.x) over to F24 and all  that will have to be undone. Please do not commit to the kodi branch unless you  discuss it with me. Yes, you may have provenpackager, but please do not abuse it.

I'm neutral on this - leaning towards no. Wait until F25 to introduce Telegram. F25  is almost out.

Huh? Upstream says 3.1 is API- and ABI-compatible to 3.0 (with only one application needed fixing for some reason), so it should be perfectly suitable as an update. This is similar to Qt upgrades that have often been done in Fedora (where there are also a few odd packages that invariably need rebuilding due to (ab)using private Qt APIs).

Introducing a second package for the new version is a horrible idea, it will lead to symbol conflicts (in applications accidentally transitively linking both versions) and a waste of space. I would just upgrade the existing package to the new version.

Michael Cronenworth wrote: > This is not ideal. The ffmpeg 3.0.x branch is not going unmaintained > AFAIK. We can't push out a big rebuild of a major library so one, new > package can be introduced into F24. Huh? Upstream says 3.1 is API- and ABI-compatible to 3.0 (with only one application needed fixing for some reason),

suitable as an update. This is similar to Qt upgrades that have often been done in Fedora (where there are also a few odd packages that invariably need rebuilding due to (ab)using private Qt APIs). Introducing a second package for the new version is a horrible idea, it will lead to symbol conflicts (in applications accidentally transitively linking both versions) and a waste of space. I would just upgrade the existing package to the new version. Kevin Kofler

Julian Sikorski wrote: > > Could you please point me to a reference for this? I looked around > a bit > but couldn't find one. Thanks! The original post had a quote: > > "There are no SONAME changes, only new symbols added to the > libraries, > so they're backwards compatible and no rebuild of dependencies > should > be required" but don't ask me where it comes from.

        Kevin Kofler

Hi, Nicolas, ask me to bring this discussion to the mailing list . Nicolas sorry for the delay , I had a big cold, I'm ok now (it just an excuse :) ) OK, all story is in https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=4260 and in https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=4145 and we have 48 packages depends on ffmpeg-libs. First, ABI changes of ffmpeg 3.0.x to 3.1.x ? "There are no SONAME changes, only new symbols added to the libraries, so they're backwards compatible and no rebuild of dependencies should be required" . "mpv will break" . My arguments, I read today http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Updates_Policy#All_other_updates and it have one exceptions list, we have some items that can be applied to this case, like : - The update doesn't change ABI/API and nothing needs to be rebuilt against the new version. (almost) - The update fixes serious bugs that many fedora users are encountering.

ffmpeg-3.0 is a major version that had short duration, it was the first version of an major version (3.0.x), so we expect have more bugs, also vlc now requires ffmpeg 3.1.x and we have to maintain it about more 9 months (F24 be an fresh version also counts).

I hope have one decision, quickly and close this subject (update ffmpeg in F24 to 3.1.x ? ).

2016-10-12 2:49 GMT+02:00 Sérgio Basto <sergio(a)serjux.com&gt;: > > Hi, > Nicolas, ask me to bring this discussion to the mailing list . > Nicolas sorry for the delay , I had a big cold, I'm ok now (it just > an > excuse :) ) > > OK, all story is in > https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=4260 > and in https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=4145 > > and we have 48 packages depends on ffmpeg-libs. > > First, ABI changes of ffmpeg 3.0.x to 3.1.x ? > "There are no SONAME changes, only new symbols added to the > libraries, > so they're backwards compatible and no rebuild of dependencies > should > be required" . "mpv will break" . > > My arguments, I read today > http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Updates_Policy#All_other_updates and > it > have one exceptions list, we have some items that can be applied to > this case, like : > > - The update doesn't change ABI/API and nothing needs to be rebuilt > against the new version. (almost) > > - The update fixes serious bugs that many fedora users are > encountering. Where thoses serious bugs was reported ? Is there upstream reports ? What I would expect instead are more features instead, (and even some features was removed such as libdcadec) So despite there is no ABI changes, there are some behavior changes. > > ffmpeg-3.0 is a major version that had short duration, it was the > first > version of an major version (3.0.x), so we expect have more bugs, > also > vlc now requires ffmpeg 3.1.x and we have to maintain it about more > 9 > months (F24 be an fresh version also counts). I don't understand what you mean by "we expect to have more bugs..", so a little history: Previously ffmpeg upstream didn't provide maintained branches at all. If one distro packager wanted a rebase to a newer snapshot from master, there are probably some API changes and very often ABI changes (along with new bugs and features mixed). Also if one wanted to report and issue upstream, the first step was to test with a recent git snapshot. Most likely that our stable ffmpeg packages was contains known upstream bugs that was unfixed because of that. So the way we used to have a stabilized version was to periodically check for api/abi snapshot, get the last commit before an abi break and stick to this version with adding only patches and backports from our user base reported issues. On a fedora development cycle, we updated the newer api/abi snapshot, rebuild (and more likely patch) all dependent applications and try to fix regression and feedbacks from our rawhide users. This was lot of packager work about testing, patching, bisecting for finding regression and all. And probably that job was done across all ffmpeg package maintainers. So really see that having maintained branches upstream as an enormous improvement. Here the proposition seems to ask to withdraw all that and only pick the last stable release everywhere. So this sounds to me that we are going backward on the highway. I would also notice, that our stabilization process was very little in the f24 development timeframe, because of the infra issues we had passed. So I'm expect to have a better stabilization process with f25 and hopes to have lot of feedbacks from branches/rawhide users while keeping users stable. (There is probably already lot of issue related to f24 -> f25 system-upgrade migrations). Now that was rather general about our stabilization process, but now from a more specific analysis on ffmpeg 3.0x and 3.1x maintained branches, I see the same kind of fixes between branches. I think there is just normal bugfix . So not having 3.1x only means missing the 3.1 specific features. So It's probably safe from ffmpeg itslef perpective.

> > I hope have one decision, quickly and close this subject (update > ffmpeg > in F24 to 3.1.x ? ). So the question is do we update 3.1x in f24 ?, my vote is the following: +0 It means I don't agree with the proposition, but I won't hold it either. instead, I expect that people that want this proposition are actively working on testing the package update and doing the needed QA in cooperation with each package maintainer if needed.

I also note that I'm way too much busy with internal infra issue to back this update and the eventual regressions

(on a side note I would like to have a my ffmpeg-nonfree patches reviewed/merged before any backport to f24 - rfbz#4243)

On 10/14/2016 11:09 AM, Sérgio Basto wrote: > I think we can perform the mass rebuild (or not) just in F24 without > touching F25 and rawhide. May I ask why a mass rebuild was not performed? I just uncovered an issue with the FFMpeg 3.1 update. Kodi core dumps when attempting to play MPEG2 streams. A rebuild fixes it. I'm pushing through one now for F24. In the future let's please be more careful with these updates. There certainly were some small ABI changes and upstream dropped the ball on announcing them. Thanks, Michael

Hi, On 23/11/2016 08:41, Michael Cronenworth wrote: > On 10/14/2016 11:09 AM, Sérgio Basto wrote: >> I think we can perform the mass rebuild (or not) just in F24 without >> touching F25 and rawhide. > > May I ask why a mass rebuild was not performed? > > I just uncovered an issue with the FFMpeg 3.1 update. Kodi core dumps > when attempting to play MPEG2 streams. A rebuild fixes it. I'm pushing > through one now for F24. > > In the future let's please be more careful with these updates. There > certainly were some small ABI changes and upstream dropped the ball on > announcing them. > > Thanks, > Michael There are tools to check for ABI changes, announced or not. http://upstream.rosalinux.ru/index.html Here's the link for ffmpeg : https://abi-laboratory.pro/tracker/timeline/ffmpeg/ Regards, Xavier