10:29 a.m.
2011/9/1 Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski <dominik(a)greysector.net>:
On Wednesday, 31 August 2011 at 03:06, Marcos Felipe Rasia de Mello
wrote:
> 2011/8/10 Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski <dominik(a)greysector.net>:
> > Hi,
> >
> > On Sunday, 31 July 2011 at 22:53, Nicolas Chauvet wrote:
..
> >> That been said, we should probably update to this ABI in
F15 for x264
> >> as a preliminary step to continue to follow the 0.7.x ffmpeg branch
> >> there.
> >
> > I'll try to find some time to prepare the updates till the end of the week.
> >
>
> I don't want to rush anyone, but do you have any news on this?
Yeah, I went locally through all dependent packages on F-14 and patched them
where necessary, so F14 is ready to be pushed, but we need to do devel/F-16
first, then F-15 and then F-14.
Hi
Without further arguments, I still consider doing such update in F-14
as a violation of the fedora's
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Updates_Policy
As we follow fedora's guidelines as we can with the exception of the
licensing, I just confirm that this policy applies to RPM Fusion too.
Quoting, "As a result, we should avoid major updates of packages
within a stable release"
So at the fist step, there is a need to have the change reverted, so
If another ffmpeg dependency in fedora break it's ABI for any reason,
we can rebuilt ffmpeg/x264 with the same version as the one already in
the repo.
Then I'm not necessarily against the idea, but I would like to listen
Pro/Con from other maintainers of multimedia packages, after something
has landed in f15 for some time.
Nicolas (kwizart)
10:31 p.m.
Hi,
On Friday, 02 September 2011 at 12:29, Nicolas Chauvet wrote:
[...]
Without further arguments, I still consider doing such update in
F-14
as a violation of the fedora's
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Updates_Policy
As we follow fedora's guidelines as we can with the exception of the
licensing, I just confirm that this policy applies to RPM Fusion too.
Quoting, "As a result, we should avoid major updates of packages
within a stable release"
I don't consider this a major update. It is both ABI and API compatible
with what we have in F-14 and it carries security fixes which the older
release doesn't have. Not to mention some very attractive features like
frame-level multithreaded h264 decoding. If you want to cherry-pick and
backport only the security patches from FFmpeg git, be my guest, but
I think it is too much work and unnecessary, considering that 0.7 branch
is API and ABI compatible.
And if you recall my first e-mail on this subject, all the rebuilds
I did in F-14 were not strictly necessary, because there's no API or ABI
breakage. All build failures occured because the packages haven't been
rebuilt for a long time.
So at the fist step, there is a need to have the change reverted, so
If another ffmpeg dependency in fedora break it's ABI for any reason,
we can rebuilt ffmpeg/x264 with the same version as the one already in
the repo.
Why would there be an ABI-breaking change in F-14? That would be against
the updates policy...
Then I'm not necessarily against the idea, but I would like to
listen
Pro/Con from other maintainers of multimedia packages, after something
has landed in f15 for some time.
Sure. Now that I'm done with devel/F-16, I'll move on to F-15. However,
I think I did all the work already for F-14 and there will be no
patching necessary.
Regards,
Dominik
--
Fedora http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Rathann
RPMFusion http://rpmfusion.org | MPlayer http://mplayerhq.hu
"Faith manages."
-- Delenn to Lennier in Babylon 5:"Confessions and Lamentations"
5:27 a.m.
On 04/09/11 08:31, Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski wrote:
I don't consider this a major update. It is both ABI and API
compatible
with what we have in F-14 and it carries security fixes which the older
release doesn't have. Not to mention some very attractive features like
...
Forgetting new features, the security fixes should definitely be
considered, in my opinion. Given it's often much more work to find just
the security patches, and Dominik has already made f14 initial builds
and testing, it seems that we've (Dominik) has made good preparations
for this update.
We still have f14-updates-testing, were we can grab builds, and confirm
operation of packages before "letting loose" on the all our rpmfusion users.
4831
days inactive
4833
days old
rpmfusion-developers@lists.rpmfusion.org
2 comments
3 participants
participants (3)
-
Agnes Jones -
Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski -
Nicolas Chauvet