Dear all, ffmpeg-2.4 was released recently which means we have another rebuild coming up. I have done a test and only 4 packages have failed, which is not bad given the extent of API changes: - alsa-plugins-freeworld: pcm_a52.c:101:45: error: 'struct a52_ctx' has no member named 'frame' - dvbcut: lavfmuxer.cpp:63:57: error: 'av_new_stream' was not declared in this scope - kmediafactory: videofile.cpp:74:45: error: 'av_find_stream_info' was not declared in this scope (mencoder needs to be rebuilt first) - vlc: configure: error: libavcodec versions 56 and later are not supported yet. Given that we are close to branching (?), what would be the good time to do the rebuild? Best regards, Julian

Looks like we are almost there. The two remaining packages have not been touched by upstream in ages and maybe we should reconsider whether it is worth carrying them.

W dniu 01.10.2014 o 23:03, David Timms pisze: > On 02/10/14 03:51, Julian Sikorski wrote: > ... >> Looks like we are almost there. The two remaining packages have not been >> touched by upstream in ages and maybe we should reconsider whether it is >> worth carrying them. > > Which packages are remaining please ? > dvbcut and kmediafactory.

On 02/10/14 22:52, David Timms wrote: > On 02/10/14 15:36, Julian Sikorski wrote: .. >>> Which packages are remaining please ? >>> >> dvbcut and kmediafactory.

I did a mock test build with: mock -r fedora-rawhide-x86_64-rpmfusion_free --rebuild /home/davidt/rpmbuild/SRPMS/dvbcut-0.6.1-17.svn179.fc20.src.rpm This build completed. So am wondering, what mock config to do the testing/changes that this thread is discussing ?

Dear all, ffmpeg-2.4 was released recently which means we have another rebuild coming up. I have done a test and only 4 packages have failed, which is not bad given the extent of API changes: - alsa-plugins-freeworld: pcm_a52.c:101:45: error: 'struct a52_ctx' has no member named 'frame' - dvbcut: lavfmuxer.cpp:63:57: error: 'av_new_stream' was not declared in this scope - kmediafactory: videofile.cpp:74:45: error: 'av_find_stream_info' was not declared in this scope (mencoder needs to be rebuilt first) - vlc: configure: error: libavcodec versions 56 and later are not supported yet. Given that we are close to branching (?), what would be the good time to do the rebuild?

On 09/21/2014 11:20 PM, Sérgio Basto wrote: > On Dom, 2014-09-21 at 19:03 +0200, Julian Sikorski wrote: >> Dear all, >> >> ffmpeg-2.4 was released recently which means we have another rebuild >> coming up. I have done a test and only 4 packages have failed, which is >> not bad given the extent of API changes: >> - alsa-plugins-freeworld: pcm_a52.c:101:45: error: 'struct a52_ctx' has >> no member named 'frame' >> - dvbcut: lavfmuxer.cpp:63:57: error: 'av_new_stream' was not declared >> in this scope >> - kmediafactory: videofile.cpp:74:45: error: 'av_find_stream_info' was >> not declared in this scope (mencoder needs to be rebuilt first) >> - vlc: configure: error: libavcodec versions 56 and later are not >> supported yet. >> >> Given that we are close to branching (?), what would be the good time to >> do the rebuild? > > yes, I don't see any problem, I can do the mass rebuild of others > packages, no problem. > > My question if we ever put this updates on F20 ? No. If I understand correctly, this is an API/ABI incompatible upgrade and not an ordinary update. This means, unless there are very good reasons (e.g. security critical bug fixes), which make such upgrades inevitably necessary, such upgrades are harmful and should not happen. Keep in mind, people might build other packages based on your packages, which might break because of your upgrade. > I'd like put it at > least on update-testing. Sorry, but this can't work. Ralf

On Seg, 2014-09-22 at 06:50 +0200, Julian Sikorski wrote: > W dniu 22.09.2014 o 05:35, Ralf Corsepius pisze: >> On 09/21/2014 11:20 PM, Sérgio Basto wrote: >>> On Dom, 2014-09-21 at 19:03 +0200, Julian Sikorski wrote: >>>> Dear all, >>>> >>>> ffmpeg-2.4 was released recently which means we have another rebuild >>>> coming up. I have done a test and only 4 packages have failed, which is >>>> not bad given the extent of API changes: >>>> - alsa-plugins-freeworld: pcm_a52.c:101:45: error: 'struct a52_ctx' has >>>> no member named 'frame' >>>> - dvbcut: lavfmuxer.cpp:63:57: error: 'av_new_stream' was not declared >>>> in this scope >>>> - kmediafactory: videofile.cpp:74:45: error: 'av_find_stream_info' was >>>> not declared in this scope (mencoder needs to be rebuilt first) >>>> - vlc: configure: error: libavcodec versions 56 and later are not >>>> supported yet. >>>> >>>> Given that we are close to branching (?), what would be the good time to >>>> do the rebuild? >>> >>> yes, I don't see any problem, I can do the mass rebuild of others >>> packages, no problem. >>> >>> My question if we ever put this updates on F20 ? >> >> No. If I understand correctly, this is an API/ABI incompatible upgrade >> and not an ordinary update. This means, unless there are very good >> reasons (e.g. security critical bug fixes), which make such upgrades >> inevitably necessary, such upgrades are harmful and should not happen. >> Keep in mind, people might build other packages based on your packages, >> which might break because of your upgrade. >> >>> I'd like put it at >>> least on update-testing. >> Sorry, but this can't work. >> >> Ralf >> > I tend to agree with Ralf here. Having said that, I believe we should do > something about F-20. It is currently tracking ffmpeg-2.1 branch, which > seems to be unmaintained [1]. Looking at the API changes [2], updating > to 2.2/2.3 should be relatively painless. Hi, as you may know, I have some difficulties in deal with foreigner language (English). IIUC , upgrade to ffmpeg-2.3 in F-20 , also have API/ABI incompatible. Of course I'm not saying put ffmpeg-2.4 in F-20 without testing , 2.3 is tested on F-21 Alpha , I have 2 machines and one vm , and don't found any bug . For me is fine put ffmpeg-2.3 / x264-0.142 in F-20 updates-testing , but as Ralf point out, we are breaking some rules . > Best regards, > Julian > > [1] http://ffmpeg.org/olddownload.html > [2] http://upstream-tracker.org/versions/ffmpeg.html

On Dom, 2014-09-21 at 19:03 +0200, Julian Sikorski wrote: > Dear all, > > ffmpeg-2.4 was released recently which means we have another rebuild > coming up. I have done a test and only 4 packages have failed, which is > not bad given the extent of API changes: > - alsa-plugins-freeworld: pcm_a52.c:101:45: error: 'struct a52_ctx' has > no member named 'frame' > - dvbcut: lavfmuxer.cpp:63:57: error: 'av_new_stream' was not declared > in this scope > - kmediafactory: videofile.cpp:74:45: error: 'av_find_stream_info' was > not declared in this scope (mencoder needs to be rebuilt first) > - vlc: configure: error: libavcodec versions 56 and later are not > supported yet. > > Given that we are close to branching (?), what would be the good time to > do the rebuild? yes, I don't see any problem, I can do the mass rebuild of others packages, no problem. My question if we ever put this updates on F20 ? I'd like put it at least on update-testing. I can made a list of the packages, with ffmpeg / x264 dependencies, that should stay on update-testing for more time than usual, but is not my decision . Best regards,

xine-lib passed a local rebuild and is now building in plague.

On Qui, 2014-09-25 at 07:47 +0200, Julian Sikorski wrote: > W dniu 21.09.2014 o 23:20, Sérgio Basto pisze: >> On Dom, 2014-09-21 at 19:03 +0200, Julian Sikorski wrote: >>> Dear all, >>> >>> ffmpeg-2.4 was released recently which means we have another rebuild >>> coming up. I have done a test and only 4 packages have failed, which is >>> not bad given the extent of API changes: >>> - alsa-plugins-freeworld: pcm_a52.c:101:45: error: 'struct a52_ctx' has >>> no member named 'frame' >>> - dvbcut: lavfmuxer.cpp:63:57: error: 'av_new_stream' was not declared >>> in this scope >>> - kmediafactory: videofile.cpp:74:45: error: 'av_find_stream_info' was >>> not declared in this scope (mencoder needs to be rebuilt first) >>> - vlc: configure: error: libavcodec versions 56 and later are not >>> supported yet. >>> >>> Given that we are close to branching (?), what would be the good time to >>> do the rebuild? >> >> yes, I don't see any problem, I can do the mass rebuild of others >> packages, no problem. >> >> My question if we ever put this updates on F20 ? I'd like put it at >> least on update-testing. I can made a list of the packages, with >> ffmpeg / x264 dependencies, that should stay on update-testing for more >> time than usual, but is not my decision . >> >> >> Best regards, >> > ffmpeg-2.4.1 has now been built. I will take care of rebuilding mplayer. > > Best regards, > Julian Hi, please wait, let's wait to know if kwizart allow us to put ffmpeg 2.3.3 in F20, we think it is better and we have strong reasons , like explained in https://lists.rpmfusion.org/pipermail/rpmfusion-developers/2014-September... Kwizart , do you allow this exception ? Thanks,

2014-09-25 19:27 GMT+02:00 Julian Sikorski <belegdol(a)gmail.com&gt;: W dniu 25.09.2014 o 17:26, Sérgio Basto pisze: > On Qui, 2014-09-25 at 07:47 +0200, Julian Sikorski wrote: >> W dniu 21.09.2014 o 23:20, Sérgio Basto pisze: >>> On Dom, 2014-09-21 at 19:03 +0200, Julian Sikorski wrote: >>>> Dear all, >>>> >>>> ffmpeg-2.4 was released recently which means we have another rebuild >>>> coming up. I have done a test and only 4 packages have failed, which is >>>> not bad given the extent of API changes: >>>> - alsa-plugins-freeworld: pcm_a52.c:101:45: error: 'struct a52_ctx' has >>>> no member named 'frame' >>>> - dvbcut: lavfmuxer.cpp:63:57: error: 'av_new_stream' was not declared >>>> in this scope >>>> - kmediafactory: videofile.cpp:74:45: error: 'av_find_stream_info' was >>>> not declared in this scope (mencoder needs to be rebuilt first) >>>> - vlc: configure: error: libavcodec versions 56 and later are not >>>> supported yet. >>>> >>>> Given that we are close to branching (?), what would be the good time to >>>> do the rebuild? >>> >>> yes, I don't see any problem, I can do the mass rebuild of others >>> packages, no problem. >>> >>> My question if we ever put this updates on F20 ? I'd like put it at >>> least on update-testing. I can made a list of the packages, with >>> ffmpeg / x264 dependencies, that should stay on update-testing for more >>> time than usual, but is not my decision . >>> >>> >>> Best regards, >>> >> ffmpeg-2.4.1 has now been built. I will take care of rebuilding mplayer. Can we care about rebuilding all dependencies at the same time ?

I've no time to care... Nicolas (kwizart)

2014-09-25 20:44 GMT+02:00 Sérgio Basto <sergio(a)serjux.com&gt;: On Qui, 2014-09-25 at 20:33 +0200, Nicolas Chauvet wrote: > 2014-09-25 19:27 GMT+02:00 Julian Sikorski <belegdol(a)gmail.com&gt;: > W dniu 25.09.2014 o 17:26, Sérgio Basto pisze: > > On Qui, 2014-09-25 at 07:47 +0200, Julian Sikorski wrote: > >> W dniu 21.09.2014 o 23:20, Sérgio Basto pisze: > >>> On Dom, 2014-09-21 at 19:03 +0200, Julian Sikorski wrote: > >>>> Dear all, > >>>> > >>>> ffmpeg-2.4 was released recently which means we have > another rebuild > >>>> coming up. I have done a test and only 4 packages have > failed, which is > >>>> not bad given the extent of API changes: > >>>> - alsa-plugins-freeworld: pcm_a52.c:101:45: error: > 'struct a52_ctx' has > >>>> no member named 'frame' > >>>> - dvbcut: lavfmuxer.cpp:63:57: error: 'av_new_stream' was > not declared > >>>> in this scope > >>>> - kmediafactory: videofile.cpp:74:45: error: > 'av_find_stream_info' was > >>>> not declared in this scope (mencoder needs to be rebuilt > first) > >>>> - vlc: configure: error: libavcodec versions 56 and > later are not > >>>> supported yet. > >>>> > >>>> Given that we are close to branching (?), what would be > the good time to > >>>> do the rebuild? > >>> > >>> yes, I don't see any problem, I can do the mass rebuild of > others > >>> packages, no problem. > >>> > >>> My question if we ever put this updates on F20 ? I'd like > put it at > >>> least on update-testing. I can made a list of the > packages, with > >>> ffmpeg / x264 dependencies, that should stay on > update-testing for more > >>> time than usual, but is not my decision . > >>> > >>> > >>> Best regards, > >>> > >> ffmpeg-2.4.1 has now been built. I will take care of > rebuilding mplayer. > > > > Can we care about rebuilding all dependencies at the same time ? > yes of course , I will take care , but may I build all for new ffmpeg /x624 for F20 ? SO I NAK the ffmpeg update in F-20 because the way the update was done in Rawhide. I don't want to hear about it. This is not acceptable not to have coordinated the update.

PERIOD. -- - Nicolas (kwizart)

On Qui, 2014-09-25 at 21:18 +0100, Sérgio Basto wrote: >> SO I NAK the ffmpeg update in F-20 because the way the update was > done >> in Rawhide. >> I don't want to hear about it. This is not acceptable not to have >> coordinated the update. > > Sorry I'm in work and can't focus, I already sent incomplete emails > etc, > but you NACK because ffmpeg 2.4 was submit in devel ? we can roll back > it , it easy to roll back it. > > I understand, how things should roll out , first commit in devel , and > copy along branches and that is the way that should be done . So yes > it > was forbidden commit on devel for not roll out to branch , am I the > coordinator ? , we can fix it, is not a big deal. I will take care of > everything > Thanks, > > I have to go now , I'll try catch kwizart on irc this weekend to see what we can do, and also plan do the mass rebuild this weekend until then, I'm busy . If I am the coordinator, please don't submit more builds with +- rebuild (ffmpeg-2.4) and disable needsign repo , since nothing was yet publish, moreover is more difficult to me do the mass rebuild correctly because I have to track down which packages already sent it to rebuild.

mplayer

On Fri, 2014-09-26 at 14:29 +0200, Xavier Bachelot wrote: > mplayer I'm still seeing this on my F21 up to date system: Error: nothing provides libavutil.so.54()(64bit) needed by mplayer-1.1-28.20140919svn.fc21.x86_64. nothing provides libavutil.so.54()(64bit) needed by mplayer-1.1-28.20140919svn.fc21.x86_64 Is this related to the rebuild, or is it another issue?

Should I still attempt the downgrade?

On 10/01/2014 12:43 PM, Ankur Sinha wrote: > Should I still attempt the downgrade? No. You need to downgrade mplayer. mplayer was built against ffmpeg 2.4, but you do not have ffmpeg 2.4 installed.

2014-09-25 20:44 GMT+02:00 Sérgio Basto <sergio(a)serjux.com <mailto:sergio@serjux.com>>: On Qui, 2014-09-25 at 20:33 +0200, Nicolas Chauvet wrote: > 2014-09-25 19:27 GMT+02:00 Julian Sikorski <belegdol(a)gmail.com <mailto:belegdol@gmail.com>>: > W dniu 25.09.2014 o 17:26, Sérgio Basto pisze: > > On Qui, 2014-09-25 at 07:47 +0200, Julian Sikorski wrote: > >> W dniu 21.09.2014 o 23:20, Sérgio Basto pisze: > >>> On Dom, 2014-09-21 at 19:03 +0200, Julian Sikorski wrote: > >>>> Dear all, > >>>> > >>>> ffmpeg-2.4 was released recently which means we have > another rebuild > >>>> coming up. I have done a test and only 4 packages have > failed, which is > >>>> not bad given the extent of API changes: > >>>> - alsa-plugins-freeworld: pcm_a52.c:101:45: error: > 'struct a52_ctx' has > >>>> no member named 'frame' > >>>> - dvbcut: lavfmuxer.cpp:63:57: error: 'av_new_stream' was > not declared > >>>> in this scope > >>>> - kmediafactory: videofile.cpp:74:45: error: > 'av_find_stream_info' was > >>>> not declared in this scope (mencoder needs to be rebuilt > first) > >>>> - vlc: configure: error: libavcodec versions 56 and > later are not > >>>> supported yet. > >>>> > >>>> Given that we are close to branching (?), what would be > the good time to > >>>> do the rebuild? > >>> > >>> yes, I don't see any problem, I can do the mass rebuild of > others > >>> packages, no problem. > >>> > >>> My question if we ever put this updates on F20 ? I'd like > put it at > >>> least on update-testing. I can made a list of the > packages, with > >>> ffmpeg / x264 dependencies, that should stay on > update-testing for more > >>> time than usual, but is not my decision . > >>> > >>> > >>> Best regards, > >>> > >> ffmpeg-2.4.1 has now been built. I will take care of > rebuilding mplayer. > > > > Can we care about rebuilding all dependencies at the same time ? > yes of course , I will take care , but may I build all for new ffmpeg /x624 for F20 ? SO I NAK the ffmpeg update in F-20 because the way the update was done in Rawhide. I don't want to hear about it. This is not acceptable not to have coordinated the update. PERIOD. -- - Nicolas (kwizart)

W dniu 04.10.2014 o 11:39, Julian Sikorski pisze: > W dniu 25.09.2014 o 21:04, Nicolas Chauvet pisze: >> 2014-09-25 20:44 GMT+02:00 Sérgio Basto >> <sergio(a)serjux.com >> <mailto:sergio@serjux.com>>: >> >> On Qui, 2014-09-25 at 20:33 +0200, Nicolas Chauvet wrote: >> > 2014-09-25 19:27 GMT+02:00 Julian Sikorski >> <belegdol(a)gmail.com >> <mailto:belegdol@gmail.com>>: >> > W dniu 25.09.2014 o 17:26, Sérgio Basto pisze: >> > > On Qui, 2014-09-25 at 07:47 +0200, Julian Sikorski wrote: >> > >> W dniu 21.09.2014 o 23:20, Sérgio Basto pisze: >> > >>> On Dom, 2014-09-21 at 19:03 +0200, Julian Sikorski wrote: >> > >>>> Dear all, >> > >>>> >> > >>>> ffmpeg-2.4 was released recently which means we have >> > another rebuild >> > >>>> coming up. I have done a test and only 4 packages have >> > failed, which is >> > >>>> not bad given the extent of API changes: >> > >>>> - alsa-plugins-freeworld: pcm_a52.c:101:45: error: >> > 'struct a52_ctx' has >> > >>>> no member named 'frame' >> > >>>> - dvbcut: lavfmuxer.cpp:63:57: error: 'av_new_stream' was >> > not declared >> > >>>> in this scope >> > >>>> - kmediafactory: videofile.cpp:74:45: error: >> > 'av_find_stream_info' was >> > >>>> not declared in this scope (mencoder needs to be rebuilt >> > first) >> > >>>> - vlc: configure: error: libavcodec versions 56 and >> > later are not >> > >>>> supported yet. >> > >>>> >> > >>>> Given that we are close to branching (?), what would be >> > the good time to >> > >>>> do the rebuild? >> > >>> >> > >>> yes, I don't see any problem, I can do the mass rebuild of >> > others >> > >>> packages, no problem. >> > >>> >> > >>> My question if we ever put this updates on F20 ? I'd like >> > put it at >> > >>> least on update-testing. I can made a list of the >> > packages, with >> > >>> ffmpeg / x264 dependencies, that should stay on >> > update-testing for more >> > >>> time than usual, but is not my decision . >> > >>> >> > >>> >> > >>> Best regards, >> > >>> >> > >> ffmpeg-2.4.1 has now been built. I will take care of >> > rebuilding mplayer. >> > >> > >> > >> > Can we care about rebuilding all dependencies at the same time ? >> > >> yes of course , I will take care , >> >> but may I build all for new ffmpeg /x624 for F20 ? >> >> >> SO I NAK the ffmpeg update in F-20 because the way the update was done >> in Rawhide. >> I don't want to hear about it. This is not acceptable not to have >> coordinated the update. >> PERIOD. >> >> >> -- >> - >> >> Nicolas (kwizart) > > In case this gets reconsidered at some point in the future: I have done > a test rebuild of F-20 dependecies against ffmpeg-2.3.4, and all 37 have > built correctly. > Moreover, only libavfilter has a soname bump (please find rpmsodiff > output attached). This means that we really only need to rebuild > dvdstyler, mpv and xbmc. > > Best regards, > Julian > 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. Best regards, Julian

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 ?

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 ?

BTW what packages (.spec) do you have ? that are different from stable branches to devel ?

Thanks and best regards,

I expect to have another look this weekend; however, don't hold up the update just due dvbcut...

2014-10-19 2:27 GMT+02:00 Sérgio Basto <sergio(a)serjux.com&gt;: > On Sex, 2014-10-17 at 07:37 +1100, David Timms wrote: > > I expect to have another look this weekend; however, don't hold up the > > update just due dvbcut... > > OK, so seems we don't have big issues , kwizart also agreed. > So if no impediments, I plan star mass rebuild for ffmpeg-2.4, tomorrow > Sunday, afternoon > > I'll follow this wikipage : > > http://rpmfusion.org/ImportantDependencyLists#only_ffmpeg_so_bump > > > in this order : > * build ffmpeg > * build gpac > * build x264 without bootstrap (depends on gpac and ffmpeg ) > * build libquicktime (vlc, mjpegtools and mlt need it) > * build what requires ffmpeg-libs. > Please lead the rebuild so everything can be done in one push. I may hold the rawhide push until everything get in. But I would also have everything not failing, so please someone to have a look on the two remaining failing packages. We are rather late in the Fedora 21 release process At worst I will remove the two package from the f21 tree until fixed.

No testing of the binary package at all, but I think the changes seem good. I don't have commit access so someone else will need sort that side out, see attached. If no super-packager can commit, then I can make a bug to hold the patches, just let me know.

On 22/10/14 23:23, David Timms wrote: > No testing of the binary package at all, but I think the changes seem > good. I don't have commit access so someone else will need sort that > side out, see attached. > > If no super-packager can commit, then I can make a bug to hold the > patches, just let me know. And just remembered that I commented out two requires, so here is the more correct spec file. (fully untested; couldn't work out the bunch of new ffmpeg related builds that could let me upgrade mlt/dvd-slideshow to suit kmediafactory.

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?

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).

W dniu 05.11.2014 o 17:05, Sérgio Basto pisze: > 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 . Dear Nicolas, do you agree to updating ffmpeg in F-20 to 2.2.11? 2.1 branch is pretty much unmaintained upstream and using it is a security risk to our users. A new release came out recently but it still was an exception to the rule. The downstream effects are limited to dvdstyler, mpv and xbmc. >>> >>> 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, > Dear Sergio, when would it be convenient for you to do this?

On Qui, 2014-09-25 at 19:27 +0200, Julian Sikorski wrote: > W dniu 25.09.2014 o 17:26, Sérgio Basto pisze: >> On Qui, 2014-09-25 at 07:47 +0200, Julian Sikorski wrote: >>> W dniu 21.09.2014 o 23:20, Sérgio Basto pisze: >>>> On Dom, 2014-09-21 at 19:03 +0200, Julian Sikorski wrote: >>>>> Dear all, >>>>> >>>>> ffmpeg-2.4 was released recently which means we have another rebuild >>>>> coming up. I have done a test and only 4 packages have failed, which is >>>>> not bad given the extent of API changes: >>>>> - alsa-plugins-freeworld: pcm_a52.c:101:45: error: 'struct a52_ctx' has >>>>> no member named 'frame' >>>>> - dvbcut: lavfmuxer.cpp:63:57: error: 'av_new_stream' was not declared >>>>> in this scope >>>>> - kmediafactory: videofile.cpp:74:45: error: 'av_find_stream_info' was >>>>> not declared in this scope (mencoder needs to be rebuilt first) >>>>> - vlc: configure: error: libavcodec versions 56 and later are not >>>>> supported yet. >>>>> >>>>> Given that we are close to branching (?), what would be the good time to >>>>> do the rebuild? >>>> >>>> yes, I don't see any problem, I can do the mass rebuild of others >>>> packages, no problem. >>>> >>>> My question if we ever put this updates on F20 ? I'd like put it at >>>> least on update-testing. I can made a list of the packages, with >>>> ffmpeg / x264 dependencies, that should stay on update-testing for more >>>> time than usual, but is not my decision . >>>> >>>> >>>> Best regards, >>>> >>> ffmpeg-2.4.1 has now been built. I will take care of rebuilding mplayer. >>> >>> Best regards, >>> Julian >> >> Hi, please wait, let's wait to know if kwizart allow us to put ffmpeg >> 2.3.3 in F20, we think it is better and we have strong reasons , like >> explained in >> https://lists.rpmfusion.org/pipermail/rpmfusion-developers/2014-September... >> >> Kwizart , do you allow this exception ? >> >> >> Thanks, >> > Just to be clear: I only pushed it to devel. F20 is still an open question. yes , but I want copy from devel to F20, the state of art , before upgrading to ffmpeg 2.4 , and it is more easier , clean etc , if just after this (update ffmpeg to 2.4) . ... Thanks,

On Qua, 2014-10-01 at 19:38 +0200, Julian Sikorski wrote: > W dniu 25.09.2014 o 20:51, Sérgio Basto pisze: >> On Qui, 2014-09-25 at 19:27 +0200, Julian Sikorski wrote: >>> W dniu 25.09.2014 o 17:26, Sérgio Basto pisze: >>>> On Qui, 2014-09-25 at 07:47 +0200, Julian Sikorski wrote: >>>>> W dniu 21.09.2014 o 23:20, Sérgio Basto pisze: >>>>>> On Dom, 2014-09-21 at 19:03 +0200, Julian Sikorski wrote: >>>>>>> Dear all, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> ffmpeg-2.4 was released recently which means we have another rebuild >>>>>>> coming up. I have done a test and only 4 packages have failed, which is >>>>>>> not bad given the extent of API changes: >>>>>>> - alsa-plugins-freeworld: pcm_a52.c:101:45: error: 'struct a52_ctx' has >>>>>>> no member named 'frame' >>>>>>> - dvbcut: lavfmuxer.cpp:63:57: error: 'av_new_stream' was not declared >>>>>>> in this scope >>>>>>> - kmediafactory: videofile.cpp:74:45: error: 'av_find_stream_info' was >>>>>>> not declared in this scope (mencoder needs to be rebuilt first) >>>>>>> - vlc: configure: error: libavcodec versions 56 and later are not >>>>>>> supported yet. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Given that we are close to branching (?), what would be the good time to >>>>>>> do the rebuild? >>>>>> >>>>>> yes, I don't see any problem, I can do the mass rebuild of others >>>>>> packages, no problem. >>>>>> >>>>>> My question if we ever put this updates on F20 ? I'd like put it at >>>>>> least on update-testing. I can made a list of the packages, with >>>>>> ffmpeg / x264 dependencies, that should stay on update-testing for more >>>>>> time than usual, but is not my decision . >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Best regards, >>>>>> >>>>> ffmpeg-2.4.1 has now been built. I will take care of rebuilding mplayer. >>>>> >>>>> Best regards, >>>>> Julian >>>> >>>> Hi, please wait, let's wait to know if kwizart allow us to put ffmpeg >>>> 2.3.3 in F20, we think it is better and we have strong reasons , like >>>> explained in >>>> https://lists.rpmfusion.org/pipermail/rpmfusion-developers/2014-September... >>>> >>>> Kwizart , do you allow this exception ? >>>> >>>> >>>> Thanks, >>>> >>> Just to be clear: I only pushed it to devel. F20 is still an open question. >> >> yes , but I want copy from devel to F20, the state of art , before >> upgrading to ffmpeg 2.4 , and it is more easier , clean etc , if just >> after this (update ffmpeg to 2.4) . ... >> >> >> Thanks, >> > If we ever decide to upgrade f20 (which I don't think we will given the > current fiasco), please do not overwrite the f20 spec with f21 one. I > suggest comparing the two and upgrading in parallel, something like git > cherry-pick. Hi , Julian , that is the point, this is cvs , we don't have "upgrading in parallel", I try rolling devel to branches and yes "overwrite the f20 spec" and what is in f20 spec is discard. Is the only rule of organization that we have .

But the main problem was and still is, lack of time , so I and kwizart (writing off-list) haven't much time next days and he point to try again (the mass rebuild) no this weekend but next weekend, meantime ffmpeg-2.3.3 still on devel (I think) . This is an ancient system so it give much work do all mass rebuild, see if we can make a new builder happen. Kwizart roll back to ffmpeg-2.3 , because though we haven't patches for vlc build against ffmpeg2-4 and lack of time of course .

Please be patient ...

>> Hi , Julian , that is the point, this is cvs , we don't have "upgrading >> in parallel", I try rolling devel to branches and yes "overwrite the f20 >> spec" and what is in f20 spec is discard. Is the only rule of >> organization that we have . > > I was not aware we have that rule. Until now, I was maintaining seperate > branches for ffmpeg and mplayer. I still believe that upgrading F-20 > independently is better as it preserves the history better. Case in point: rawhide ffmpeg has celt support disabled by default because the package has been retired in fedora. There is no reason to drop it in F-20. I have compared the F-20 and devel spec files, and the following changes are required if we decide to upgrade: - version bump to 2.3.x - rename README to README.md in %doc Please do not overwrite the F20 ffmpeg spec file. I think only makes sense for packages where the branches were kept at the same version at all times, which is not the case here.

W dniu 25.09.2014 o 17:26, Sérgio Basto pisze: > On Qui, 2014-09-25 at 07:47 +0200, Julian Sikorski wrote: >> W dniu 21.09.2014 o 23:20, Sérgio Basto pisze: >>> On Dom, 2014-09-21 at 19:03 +0200, Julian Sikorski wrote: >>>> Dear all, >>>> >>>> ffmpeg-2.4 was released recently which means we have another rebuild >>>> coming up. I have done a test and only 4 packages have failed, which is >>>> not bad given the extent of API changes: >>>> - alsa-plugins-freeworld: pcm_a52.c:101:45: error: 'struct a52_ctx' has >>>> no member named 'frame' >>>> - dvbcut: lavfmuxer.cpp:63:57: error: 'av_new_stream' was not declared >>>> in this scope >>>> - kmediafactory: videofile.cpp:74:45: error: 'av_find_stream_info' was >>>> not declared in this scope (mencoder needs to be rebuilt first) >>>> - vlc: configure: error: libavcodec versions 56 and later are not >>>> supported yet. >>>> >>>> Given that we are close to branching (?), what would be the good time to >>>> do the rebuild? >>> >>> yes, I don't see any problem, I can do the mass rebuild of others >>> packages, no problem. >>> >>> My question if we ever put this updates on F20 ? I'd like put it at >>> least on update-testing. I can made a list of the packages, with >>> ffmpeg / x264 dependencies, that should stay on update-testing for more >>> time than usual, but is not my decision . >>> >>> >>> Best regards, >>> >> ffmpeg-2.4.1 has now been built. I will take care of rebuilding mplayer. >> >> Best regards, >> Julian > > Hi, please wait, let's wait to know if kwizart allow us to put ffmpeg > 2.3.3 in F20, we think it is better and we have strong reasons , like > explained in > https://lists.rpmfusion.org/pipermail/rpmfusion-developers/2014-September... > > Kwizart , do you allow this exception ? > > > Thanks, > Just to be clear: I only pushed it to devel. F20 is still an open question.

Hi, it seems like we had a bit of misunderstanding. I was under the impression we are good to go with 2.4 in rawhide, and 2.2/2.3 for F20 is what we were discussing.

I don't think it makes sense to roll back now, let's just rebuild the dependencies to minimise breakage time.

I think I should apply for the ffmpeg deps commit access moving forward, so that there are more people who can do the rebuild.