* Re: [FFmpeg-devel] FFmpeg 5.0
2022-10-29 18:29 ` Neal Gompa
@ 2022-10-29 19:42 ` Timo Rothenpieler
2022-10-30 20:10 ` Michael Niedermayer
` (2 subsequent siblings)
3 siblings, 0 replies; 14+ messages in thread
From: Timo Rothenpieler @ 2022-10-29 19:42 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: ffmpeg-devel
On 29.10.2022 20:29, Neal Gompa wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 28, 2022 at 2:23 PM Michael Niedermayer
> <michael@niedermayer.cc> wrote:
>>
>> Hi
>>
>> According to our
>> https://trac.ffmpeg.org/wiki/Downstreams
>>
>> Noone and nothing is using 5.0
>> should i make another release of 5.0 ?
>> should i move 5.0 to olddownloads ?
>>
>> does anyone use it ? plan to use it or know of someone using it ?
>>
>
> Fedora 36 still uses FFmpeg 5.0 as I discovered there was an ABI break
> that made upgrading to FFmpeg 5.1 not possible for F36. FFmpeg 5.1 is
> used for Fedora 37, though.
Adding new functions does not break ABI, we've been over this in the past.
There is no guarantees made, and cannot be made, about running something
against an older set of libraries than at compile time.
_______________________________________________
ffmpeg-devel mailing list
ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org
https://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-devel
To unsubscribe, visit link above, or email
ffmpeg-devel-request@ffmpeg.org with subject "unsubscribe".
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 14+ messages in thread* Re: [FFmpeg-devel] FFmpeg 5.0
2022-10-29 18:29 ` Neal Gompa
2022-10-29 19:42 ` Timo Rothenpieler
@ 2022-10-30 20:10 ` Michael Niedermayer
2022-10-30 21:04 ` Neal Gompa
2022-10-30 20:16 ` Michael Niedermayer
2022-11-03 22:28 ` Michael Niedermayer
3 siblings, 1 reply; 14+ messages in thread
From: Michael Niedermayer @ 2022-10-30 20:10 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: FFmpeg development discussions and patches
[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2402 bytes --]
On Sat, Oct 29, 2022 at 02:29:56PM -0400, Neal Gompa wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 28, 2022 at 2:23 PM Michael Niedermayer
> <michael@niedermayer.cc> wrote:
> >
> > Hi
> >
> > According to our
> > https://trac.ffmpeg.org/wiki/Downstreams
> >
> > Noone and nothing is using 5.0
> > should i make another release of 5.0 ?
> > should i move 5.0 to olddownloads ?
> >
> > does anyone use it ? plan to use it or know of someone using it ?
> >
>
> Fedora 36 still uses FFmpeg 5.0 as I discovered there was an ABI break
> that made upgrading to FFmpeg 5.1 not possible for F36. FFmpeg 5.1 is
> used for Fedora 37, though.
>
> This had apparently been also discovered by openSUSE some time ago:
> https://build.opensuse.org/package/view_file/multimedia:libs/ffmpeg-5/work-around-abi-break.patch?expand=1
You can replace 5.0 by 5.1 but not 5.1 by 5.0, The compatibility is only
in one way.
Iam assuming here you talk about the addition of functions and there is
not some other issue iam not aware of.
>
> Fedora 36 will still be supported until June, so I would appreciate it
> if another release of 5.0 would be made.
I have to admit i feel a bit undecided. Id like to first understand why
this situation/"need" exists for fedora but not others
>
> Do we have ABI testing in place for submitted patches? I haven't seen
> any evidence of CI testing of patches submitted to the mailing list,
> but maybe I'm looking in the wrong place? If there is, maybe we can
> consider adding some kind of ABI testing for release branches, using
> tools like libabigail[1] with abidiff[2]?
>
> [1]: https://sourceware.org/libabigail/
> [2]: https://www.mankier.com/1/abidiff
iam not sure there is agreement between you and others of what is a ABI break
so the tool maybe will not help.
I have generaly done testing with replacing old libraries by new when doing
releases. But for me a ABI break is if replacing a library by another breaks
some binary that is not rebuild and linked to the new lib.
More testing is always good and welcome of course.
thx
[...]
--
Michael GnuPG fingerprint: 9FF2128B147EF6730BADF133611EC787040B0FAB
Breaking DRM is a little like attempting to break through a door even
though the window is wide open and the only thing in the house is a bunch
of things you dont want and which you would get tomorrow for free anyway
[-- Attachment #1.2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 195 bytes --]
[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/plain, Size: 251 bytes --]
_______________________________________________
ffmpeg-devel mailing list
ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org
https://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-devel
To unsubscribe, visit link above, or email
ffmpeg-devel-request@ffmpeg.org with subject "unsubscribe".
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 14+ messages in thread
* Re: [FFmpeg-devel] FFmpeg 5.0
2022-10-30 20:10 ` Michael Niedermayer
@ 2022-10-30 21:04 ` Neal Gompa
2022-10-31 13:03 ` Anton Khirnov
0 siblings, 1 reply; 14+ messages in thread
From: Neal Gompa @ 2022-10-30 21:04 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: FFmpeg development discussions and patches
Cc: Jan Engelhardt, Andreas Schneider
On Sun, Oct 30, 2022 at 4:10 PM Michael Niedermayer
<michael@niedermayer.cc> wrote:
>
> On Sat, Oct 29, 2022 at 02:29:56PM -0400, Neal Gompa wrote:
> > On Fri, Oct 28, 2022 at 2:23 PM Michael Niedermayer
> > <michael@niedermayer.cc> wrote:
> > >
> > > Hi
> > >
> > > According to our
> > > https://trac.ffmpeg.org/wiki/Downstreams
> > >
> > > Noone and nothing is using 5.0
> > > should i make another release of 5.0 ?
> > > should i move 5.0 to olddownloads ?
> > >
> > > does anyone use it ? plan to use it or know of someone using it ?
> > >
> >
> > Fedora 36 still uses FFmpeg 5.0 as I discovered there was an ABI break
> > that made upgrading to FFmpeg 5.1 not possible for F36. FFmpeg 5.1 is
> > used for Fedora 37, though.
> >
> > This had apparently been also discovered by openSUSE some time ago:
> > https://build.opensuse.org/package/view_file/multimedia:libs/ffmpeg-5/work-around-abi-break.patch?expand=1
>
> You can replace 5.0 by 5.1 but not 5.1 by 5.0, The compatibility is only
> in one way.
> Iam assuming here you talk about the addition of functions and there is
> not some other issue iam not aware of.
>
My understanding is that when using symbol versions, modifying the
symbol table creates a breakage on its own.
>
> >
> > Fedora 36 will still be supported until June, so I would appreciate it
> > if another release of 5.0 would be made.
>
> I have to admit i feel a bit undecided. Id like to first understand why
> this situation/"need" exists for fedora but not others
>
>
I mostly did this at the advice of Jan from openSUSE and the RPM
Fusion ffmpeg maintainers.
> >
> > Do we have ABI testing in place for submitted patches? I haven't seen
> > any evidence of CI testing of patches submitted to the mailing list,
> > but maybe I'm looking in the wrong place? If there is, maybe we can
> > consider adding some kind of ABI testing for release branches, using
> > tools like libabigail[1] with abidiff[2]?
> >
> > [1]: https://sourceware.org/libabigail/
> > [2]: https://www.mankier.com/1/abidiff
>
> iam not sure there is agreement between you and others of what is a ABI break
> so the tool maybe will not help.
>
> I have generaly done testing with replacing old libraries by new when doing
> releases. But for me a ABI break is if replacing a library by another breaks
> some binary that is not rebuild and linked to the new lib.
>
> More testing is always good and welcome of course.
>
Yeah, I think that qualifying how ABI is validated in a reproducible
way would be useful. The abigail tooling can help here, In Fedora,
every update runs through abigail validation too. I vaguely recall
that it warned me when I did the update in Rawhide, which is how I wound
up talking to Jan in openSUSE and RPM Fusion maintainers, who both
didn't refresh FFmpeg on stable branches with 5.0 to 5.1.
It's also entirely possible that I was *too* cautious, and I'm okay
with having a conversation that leads me to do differently in the future.
--
真実はいつも一つ！/ Always, there's only one truth!
_______________________________________________
ffmpeg-devel mailing list
ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org
https://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-devel
To unsubscribe, visit link above, or email
ffmpeg-devel-request@ffmpeg.org with subject "unsubscribe".
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 14+ messages in thread
* Re: [FFmpeg-devel] FFmpeg 5.0
2022-10-30 21:04 ` Neal Gompa
@ 2022-10-31 13:03 ` Anton Khirnov
2022-10-31 17:51 ` Andreas Schneider
2022-11-03 22:23 ` Michael Niedermayer
0 siblings, 2 replies; 14+ messages in thread
From: Anton Khirnov @ 2022-10-31 13:03 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: FFmpeg development discussions and patches
Cc: Jan Engelhardt, Andreas Schneider
Quoting Neal Gompa (2022-10-30 22:04:42)
> On Sun, Oct 30, 2022 at 4:10 PM Michael Niedermayer
> <michael@niedermayer.cc> wrote:
> >
> > On Sat, Oct 29, 2022 at 02:29:56PM -0400, Neal Gompa wrote:
> > > On Fri, Oct 28, 2022 at 2:23 PM Michael Niedermayer
> > > <michael@niedermayer.cc> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Hi
> > > >
> > > > According to our
> > > > https://trac.ffmpeg.org/wiki/Downstreams
> > > >
> > > > Noone and nothing is using 5.0
> > > > should i make another release of 5.0 ?
> > > > should i move 5.0 to olddownloads ?
> > > >
> > > > does anyone use it ? plan to use it or know of someone using it ?
> > > >
> > >
> > > Fedora 36 still uses FFmpeg 5.0 as I discovered there was an ABI break
> > > that made upgrading to FFmpeg 5.1 not possible for F36. FFmpeg 5.1 is
> > > used for Fedora 37, though.
> > >
> > > This had apparently been also discovered by openSUSE some time ago:
> > > https://build.opensuse.org/package/view_file/multimedia:libs/ffmpeg-5/work-around-abi-break.patch?expand=1
> >
> > You can replace 5.0 by 5.1 but not 5.1 by 5.0, The compatibility is only
> > in one way.
> > Iam assuming here you talk about the addition of functions and there is
> > not some other issue iam not aware of.
> >
>
> My understanding is that when using symbol versions, modifying the
> symbol table creates a breakage on its own.
Do you have some authoritative source for this claim? So far all the
arguments I've seen were along the lines of "because I say so".
> > >
> > > Do we have ABI testing in place for submitted patches? I haven't seen
> > > any evidence of CI testing of patches submitted to the mailing list,
> > > but maybe I'm looking in the wrong place? If there is, maybe we can
> > > consider adding some kind of ABI testing for release branches, using
> > > tools like libabigail[1] with abidiff[2]?
> > >
> > > [1]: https://sourceware.org/libabigail/
> > > [2]: https://www.mankier.com/1/abidiff
> >
> > iam not sure there is agreement between you and others of what is a ABI break
> > so the tool maybe will not help.
> >
> > I have generaly done testing with replacing old libraries by new when doing
> > releases. But for me a ABI break is if replacing a library by another breaks
> > some binary that is not rebuild and linked to the new lib.
> >
> > More testing is always good and welcome of course.
> >
>
> Yeah, I think that qualifying how ABI is validated in a reproducible
> way would be useful. The abigail tooling can help here, In Fedora,
> every update runs through abigail validation too. I vaguely recall
> that it warned me when I did the update in Rawhide, which is how I wound
> up talking to Jan in openSUSE and RPM Fusion maintainers, who both
> didn't refresh FFmpeg on stable branches with 5.0 to 5.1.
>
> It's also entirely possible that I was *too* cautious, and I'm okay
> with having a conversation that leads me to do differently in the future.
Having automated ABI testing would be definitely a good idea, not all
developers understand how ABI compatibility works and there have been
breakages (according to our definition) recently.
I also have https://github.com/lvc/abi-compliance-checker/ on my
to-look-at list, but as always time is lacking.
--
Anton Khirnov
_______________________________________________
ffmpeg-devel mailing list
ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org
https://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-devel
To unsubscribe, visit link above, or email
ffmpeg-devel-request@ffmpeg.org with subject "unsubscribe".
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 14+ messages in thread
* Re: [FFmpeg-devel] FFmpeg 5.0
2022-10-31 13:03 ` Anton Khirnov
@ 2022-10-31 17:51 ` Andreas Schneider
2022-11-03 22:23 ` Michael Niedermayer
1 sibling, 0 replies; 14+ messages in thread
From: Andreas Schneider @ 2022-10-31 17:51 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: FFmpeg development discussions and patches, Jan Engelhardt,
Andreas Schneider
On Monday, 31 October 2022 14:03:21 CET Anton Khirnov wrote:
> Quoting Neal Gompa (2022-10-30 22:04:42)
>
> > On Sun, Oct 30, 2022 at 4:10 PM Michael Niedermayer
> >
> > <michael@niedermayer.cc> wrote:
> > > On Sat, Oct 29, 2022 at 02:29:56PM -0400, Neal Gompa wrote:
> > > > On Fri, Oct 28, 2022 at 2:23 PM Michael Niedermayer
> > > >
> > > > <michael@niedermayer.cc> wrote:
> > > > > Hi
> > > > >
> > > > > According to our
> > > > > https://trac.ffmpeg.org/wiki/Downstreams
> > > > >
> > > > > Noone and nothing is using 5.0
> > > > > should i make another release of 5.0 ?
> > > > > should i move 5.0 to olddownloads ?
> > > > >
> > > > > does anyone use it ? plan to use it or know of someone using it ?
> > > >
> > > > Fedora 36 still uses FFmpeg 5.0 as I discovered there was an ABI break
> > > > that made upgrading to FFmpeg 5.1 not possible for F36. FFmpeg 5.1 is
> > > > used for Fedora 37, though.
> > > >
> > > > This had apparently been also discovered by openSUSE some time ago:
> > > > https://build.opensuse.org/package/view_file/multimedia:libs/ffmpeg-5/
> > > > work-around-abi-break.patch?expand=1> >
> > > You can replace 5.0 by 5.1 but not 5.1 by 5.0, The compatibility is only
> > > in one way.
> > > Iam assuming here you talk about the addition of functions and there is
> > > not some other issue iam not aware of.
> >
> > My understanding is that when using symbol versions, modifying the
> > symbol table creates a breakage on its own.
>
> Do you have some authoritative source for this claim? So far all the
> arguments I've seen were along the lines of "because I say so".
>
> > > > Do we have ABI testing in place for submitted patches? I haven't seen
> > > > any evidence of CI testing of patches submitted to the mailing list,
> > > > but maybe I'm looking in the wrong place? If there is, maybe we can
> > > > consider adding some kind of ABI testing for release branches, using
> > > > tools like libabigail[1] with abidiff[2]?
> > > >
> > > > [1]: https://sourceware.org/libabigail/
> > > > [2]: https://www.mankier.com/1/abidiff
> > >
> > > iam not sure there is agreement between you and others of what is a ABI
> > > break so the tool maybe will not help.
> > >
> > > I have generaly done testing with replacing old libraries by new when
> > > doing
> > > releases. But for me a ABI break is if replacing a library by another
> > > breaks some binary that is not rebuild and linked to the new lib.
> > >
> > > More testing is always good and welcome of course.
> >
> > Yeah, I think that qualifying how ABI is validated in a reproducible
> > way would be useful. The abigail tooling can help here, In Fedora,
> > every update runs through abigail validation too. I vaguely recall
> > that it warned me when I did the update in Rawhide, which is how I wound
> > up talking to Jan in openSUSE and RPM Fusion maintainers, who both
> > didn't refresh FFmpeg on stable branches with 5.0 to 5.1.
> >
> > It's also entirely possible that I was *too* cautious, and I'm okay
> > with having a conversation that leads me to do differently in the future.
>
> Having automated ABI testing would be definitely a good idea, not all
> developers understand how ABI compatibility works and there have been
> breakages (according to our definition) recently.
>
> I also have https://github.com/lvc/abi-compliance-checker/ on my
> to-look-at list, but as always time is lacking.
At libssh we use https://github.com/ansasaki/abimap for symbol versioning.
Ask if master could be added to ABI Laboratory:
https://abi-laboratory.pro/index.php?view=timeline&l=ffmpeg
Just my 2c.
Andreas
--
Andreas Schneider asn@cryptomilk.org
GPG-ID: 8DFF53E18F2ABC8D8F3C92237EE0FC4DCC014E3D
_______________________________________________
ffmpeg-devel mailing list
ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org
https://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-devel
To unsubscribe, visit link above, or email
ffmpeg-devel-request@ffmpeg.org with subject "unsubscribe".
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 14+ messages in thread
* Re: [FFmpeg-devel] FFmpeg 5.0
2022-10-31 13:03 ` Anton Khirnov
2022-10-31 17:51 ` Andreas Schneider
@ 2022-11-03 22:23 ` Michael Niedermayer
1 sibling, 0 replies; 14+ messages in thread
From: Michael Niedermayer @ 2022-11-03 22:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: FFmpeg development discussions and patches
[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1975 bytes --]
On Mon, Oct 31, 2022 at 02:03:21PM +0100, Anton Khirnov wrote:
> Quoting Neal Gompa (2022-10-30 22:04:42)
> > On Sun, Oct 30, 2022 at 4:10 PM Michael Niedermayer
> > <michael@niedermayer.cc> wrote:
> > >
> > > On Sat, Oct 29, 2022 at 02:29:56PM -0400, Neal Gompa wrote:
> > > > On Fri, Oct 28, 2022 at 2:23 PM Michael Niedermayer
> > > > <michael@niedermayer.cc> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Hi
> > > > >
> > > > > According to our
> > > > > https://trac.ffmpeg.org/wiki/Downstreams
> > > > >
> > > > > Noone and nothing is using 5.0
> > > > > should i make another release of 5.0 ?
> > > > > should i move 5.0 to olddownloads ?
> > > > >
> > > > > does anyone use it ? plan to use it or know of someone using it ?
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > Fedora 36 still uses FFmpeg 5.0 as I discovered there was an ABI break
> > > > that made upgrading to FFmpeg 5.1 not possible for F36. FFmpeg 5.1 is
> > > > used for Fedora 37, though.
> > > >
> > > > This had apparently been also discovered by openSUSE some time ago:
> > > > https://build.opensuse.org/package/view_file/multimedia:libs/ffmpeg-5/work-around-abi-break.patch?expand=1
> > >
> > > You can replace 5.0 by 5.1 but not 5.1 by 5.0, The compatibility is only
> > > in one way.
> > > Iam assuming here you talk about the addition of functions and there is
> > > not some other issue iam not aware of.
> > >
> >
> > My understanding is that when using symbol versions, modifying the
> > symbol table creates a breakage on its own.
>
> Do you have some authoritative source for this claim? So far all the
> arguments I've seen were along the lines of "because I say so".
Or in absence of this, a testcase that shows some sort of anomaly when a
global/static symbol is added to C source code.
thx
[...]
--
Michael GnuPG fingerprint: 9FF2128B147EF6730BADF133611EC787040B0FAB
I am the wisest man alive, for I know one thing, and that is that I know
nothing. -- Socrates
[-- Attachment #1.2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 195 bytes --]
[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/plain, Size: 251 bytes --]
_______________________________________________
ffmpeg-devel mailing list
ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org
https://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-devel
To unsubscribe, visit link above, or email
ffmpeg-devel-request@ffmpeg.org with subject "unsubscribe".
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 14+ messages in thread
* Re: [FFmpeg-devel] FFmpeg 5.0
2022-10-29 18:29 ` Neal Gompa
2022-10-29 19:42 ` Timo Rothenpieler
2022-10-30 20:10 ` Michael Niedermayer
@ 2022-10-30 20:16 ` Michael Niedermayer
2022-10-30 20:53 ` Neal Gompa
[not found] ` <ss9225p7-9rpo-r229-5914-4n555p66sos@vanv.qr>
2022-11-03 22:28 ` Michael Niedermayer
3 siblings, 2 replies; 14+ messages in thread
From: Michael Niedermayer @ 2022-10-30 20:16 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: FFmpeg development discussions and patches
[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 968 bytes --]
On Sat, Oct 29, 2022 at 02:29:56PM -0400, Neal Gompa wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 28, 2022 at 2:23 PM Michael Niedermayer
> <michael@niedermayer.cc> wrote:
> >
> > Hi
> >
> > According to our
> > https://trac.ffmpeg.org/wiki/Downstreams
> >
> > Noone and nothing is using 5.0
> > should i make another release of 5.0 ?
> > should i move 5.0 to olddownloads ?
> >
> > does anyone use it ? plan to use it or know of someone using it ?
> >
>
> Fedora 36 still uses FFmpeg 5.0 as I discovered there was an ABI break
> that made upgrading to FFmpeg 5.1 not possible for F36. FFmpeg 5.1 is
> used for Fedora 37, though.
why is
https://trac.ffmpeg.org/wiki/Downstreams
not listing any of that ?
thx
[...]
--
Michael GnuPG fingerprint: 9FF2128B147EF6730BADF133611EC787040B0FAB
The bravest are surely those who have the clearest vision
of what is before them, glory and danger alike, and yet
notwithstanding go out to meet it. -- Thucydides
[-- Attachment #1.2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 195 bytes --]
[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/plain, Size: 251 bytes --]
_______________________________________________
ffmpeg-devel mailing list
ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org
https://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-devel
To unsubscribe, visit link above, or email
ffmpeg-devel-request@ffmpeg.org with subject "unsubscribe".
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 14+ messages in thread* Re: [FFmpeg-devel] FFmpeg 5.0
2022-10-30 20:16 ` Michael Niedermayer
@ 2022-10-30 20:53 ` Neal Gompa
[not found] ` <ss9225p7-9rpo-r229-5914-4n555p66sos@vanv.qr>
1 sibling, 0 replies; 14+ messages in thread
From: Neal Gompa @ 2022-10-30 20:53 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: FFmpeg development discussions and patches
On Sun, Oct 30, 2022 at 4:16 PM Michael Niedermayer
<michael@niedermayer.cc> wrote:
>
> On Sat, Oct 29, 2022 at 02:29:56PM -0400, Neal Gompa wrote:
> > On Fri, Oct 28, 2022 at 2:23 PM Michael Niedermayer
> > <michael@niedermayer.cc> wrote:
> > >
> > > Hi
> > >
> > > According to our
> > > https://trac.ffmpeg.org/wiki/Downstreams
> > >
> > > Noone and nothing is using 5.0
> > > should i make another release of 5.0 ?
> > > should i move 5.0 to olddownloads ?
> > >
> > > does anyone use it ? plan to use it or know of someone using it ?
> > >
> >
> > Fedora 36 still uses FFmpeg 5.0 as I discovered there was an ABI break
> > that made upgrading to FFmpeg 5.1 not possible for F36. FFmpeg 5.1 is
> > used for Fedora 37, though.
>
> why is
> https://trac.ffmpeg.org/wiki/Downstreams
> not listing any of that ?
I didn't know it existed. Updated! :)
--
真実はいつも一つ！/ Always, there's only one truth!
_______________________________________________
ffmpeg-devel mailing list
ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org
https://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-devel
To unsubscribe, visit link above, or email
ffmpeg-devel-request@ffmpeg.org with subject "unsubscribe".
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 14+ messages in thread[parent not found: <ss9225p7-9rpo-r229-5914-4n555p66sos@vanv.qr>]
* Re: [FFmpeg-devel] FFmpeg 5.0
[not found] ` <ss9225p7-9rpo-r229-5914-4n555p66sos@vanv.qr>
@ 2022-10-31 14:33 ` Michael Niedermayer
0 siblings, 0 replies; 14+ messages in thread
From: Michael Niedermayer @ 2022-10-31 14:33 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Jan Engelhardt; +Cc: ffmpeg-devel
[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2942 bytes --]
Hi
On Mon, Oct 31, 2022 at 02:26:25PM +0100, Jan Engelhardt wrote:
>
> On Sunday 2022-10-30 21:16, Michael Niedermayer wrote:
> >>
> >> Fedora 36 still uses FFmpeg 5.0 as I discovered there was an ABI break
> >> that made upgrading to FFmpeg 5.1 not possible for F36. FFmpeg 5.1 is
> >> used for Fedora 37, though.
> >
> >why is
> >https://trac.ffmpeg.org/wiki/Downstreams
> >not listing any of that ?
>
> It does not scale.
> There are over 260 distros. Many of them have over 10000 packages. And
> many have a rapid update cadence.
The question is how many packages X Distros have security/update support
Because if there is no security support you need nothing to add to the wiki
and if there is, well that security/update support will take a human more time
than to say that (s)he is doing that support for that package
which is what the wiki lists
>
> You cannot expect distros to spend time updating other people's
> wikis all the time. There is also no standardization and no automation.
I dont expect that, if you dont expect us to make updated releases.
This is a service we provide for you. If its too much for you to tell
us you need/want/would benefit from a new release on a branch. Then
you know, thats ok with me.
>
> If you want to know what versions are being shipped, confer with
> information aggregatation projects such as repology, e.g.
> https://repology.org/project/ffmpeg/versions
Thats not the question i have.
Some distro might ship 5.0.1 or 2.8.5 but that doesnt mean they would
benefit from a 2.8.7 or 5.0.2. You can surely see that just by the fact
that there are distros which never shipped updated versions of FFmpeg.
For me the question is, should i make a new X.Y.Z+1. Or the other
way around, is there a distro which actively maintains their FFmpeg X.Y
package and wants/needs/would make a new package of that.
the Downstreams list worked quite well for that for many years. Also E-mail
and IRC have been quite effective. If it misses
50 or even 90% of distros that doesnt even matter as long as it lists a
distro that maintains support for the same version.
If i imagine that we would be concentrating on doing releases for every
branch listed somewhere on repology for FFmpeg i do not think that would
be an improvment. It would result in a lot of releases noone used and more
delay in releases people would use.
If you wish to automate part of this or improve the process sure, go ahead.
But first step is to understand what this is trying to do, reading your
mail makes me belive that you misunderstood this somewhat
Thanks
[...]
--
Michael GnuPG fingerprint: 9FF2128B147EF6730BADF133611EC787040B0FAB
If you fake or manipulate statistics in a paper in physics you will never
get a job again.
If you fake or manipulate statistics in a paper in medicin you will get
a job for life at the pharma industry.
[-- Attachment #1.2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 195 bytes --]
[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/plain, Size: 251 bytes --]
_______________________________________________
ffmpeg-devel mailing list
ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org
https://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-devel
To unsubscribe, visit link above, or email
ffmpeg-devel-request@ffmpeg.org with subject "unsubscribe".
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 14+ messages in thread
* Re: [FFmpeg-devel] FFmpeg 5.0
2022-10-29 18:29 ` Neal Gompa
` (2 preceding siblings ...)
2022-10-30 20:16 ` Michael Niedermayer
@ 2022-11-03 22:28 ` Michael Niedermayer
3 siblings, 0 replies; 14+ messages in thread
From: Michael Niedermayer @ 2022-11-03 22:28 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: FFmpeg development discussions and patches
[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1325 bytes --]
On Sat, Oct 29, 2022 at 02:29:56PM -0400, Neal Gompa wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 28, 2022 at 2:23 PM Michael Niedermayer
> <michael@niedermayer.cc> wrote:
> >
> > Hi
> >
> > According to our
> > https://trac.ffmpeg.org/wiki/Downstreams
> >
> > Noone and nothing is using 5.0
> > should i make another release of 5.0 ?
> > should i move 5.0 to olddownloads ?
> >
> > does anyone use it ? plan to use it or know of someone using it ?
> >
>
> Fedora 36 still uses FFmpeg 5.0 as I discovered there was an ABI break
> that made upgrading to FFmpeg 5.1 not possible for F36. FFmpeg 5.1 is
> used for Fedora 37, though.
>
> This had apparently been also discovered by openSUSE some time ago:
> https://build.opensuse.org/package/view_file/multimedia:libs/ffmpeg-5/work-around-abi-break.patch?expand=1
>
> Fedora 36 will still be supported until June, so I would appreciate it
> if another release of 5.0 would be made.
In absence of objections, i will make another 5.0 release but i will not make
one after that if there is no solid evidence of a need for one.
dont want to have users stuck on a buggy version while this is resolved
thx
[...]
--
Michael GnuPG fingerprint: 9FF2128B147EF6730BADF133611EC787040B0FAB
Those who are best at talking, realize last or never when they are wrong.
[-- Attachment #1.2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 195 bytes --]
[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/plain, Size: 251 bytes --]
_______________________________________________
ffmpeg-devel mailing list
ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org
https://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-devel
To unsubscribe, visit link above, or email
ffmpeg-devel-request@ffmpeg.org with subject "unsubscribe".
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 14+ messages in thread