
Reintroducing FFmpeg to Debian - unspecified
https://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2014/07/msg01010.html
======
fndrplayer13
It frankly frustrates me that Debian/Canonical ever used libav to begin with.
ffmpeg is and has been the better of the two for quite awhile. The person in
this thread arguing against inclusion of ffmpeg would probably be astonished
by the number of developers who are building ffmpeg from source instead of
using the libav that ships with Debian/Ubuntu/etc. We should encourage
developers to use RPMs, especially for something as heavy to build and install
as ffmpeg/libav. Many heavy hitters have settled on ffmpeg. It should be done
here as well.

~~~
VLM
"would probably be astonished by the number of developers who are building
ffmpeg from source"

Its a do-ocracy and if it took two or so years until Andreas packaged it up,
I'm not thinking the claimed demand actually exists. All those devs going to
all that work to compile ffmpeg, and yet none of them could be bothered to run
dpkg-buildpackage... nah just not seeing it.

There's a relevant line from the post "No, there is no need to replace
anything as long as it is maintained." This is why ffmpeg was gone for quite
awhile, no one willing to maintain it.

(edited to add, if its not entirely clear, this was totally a bottom up
decision not top down, at least as I see it. Not "Debian decided this and
that" but individual devs didn't want to package ffmpeg, so it didn't get
packaged. That simple. Of course there's social aspects so simple things are
never entirely simple... If you want an example of something in Debian being
forced top down via general resolution votes and the like, look no further
than the systemd debacle)

~~~
johnchristopher
> "would probably be astonished by the number of developers who are building
> ffmpeg from source"

> Its a do-ocracy and if it took two or so years until > Andreas packaged it
> up, I'm not thinking the claimed demand actually exists. All those devs
> going to all that work to compile ffmpeg, and yet none of them could be
> bothered to run dpkg-buildpackage... nah just not seeing it.

I have only been using ffmpeg for 8 months for quick track mixing so I don't
know much about its history but going on ffmpeg.org always led me to some
ready to use and out-of-the-box binaries hosted there
[http://ffmpeg.gusari.org/static/](http://ffmpeg.gusari.org/static/) so I
don't really see the need for a deb package. (unless the environment is
minimal and many lib are missing ? I don't use minimal debian anymore so
there's that). Am I missing something ?

~~~
fndrplayer13
Technically, no. But recall that there are many packages that build on libav*
or libsw* that could/should also be on ffmpeg which is, as noted elsewhere in
this discussion, a safer, more capable build.

------
zx2c4
Here's a nice comparison between libav and ffmpeg from the author of 'mpv'
(the most viable mplayer fork):

[https://github.com/mpv-player/mpv/wiki/FFmpeg-versus-
Libav](https://github.com/mpv-player/mpv/wiki/FFmpeg-versus-Libav)

It helped me make the decision (for choosing ffmpeg).

~~~
jesuslop
Nice doc, I didn't knew this sad story. I've engineered with ffmpeg and was
impressed with it, it's a technical open-source feat to me, the pied piper
fictional hacker comes to mind. How bad we lack a single lead for the API, I
now wonder if this explains that no more modernization hadn't gone to the
interface.

------
birkbork
Finally, thank you!

A package called "ffmpeg" has been in debian forever now, and running it's
binary claims that "ffmpeg is deprecated", which is a complete lie.

EDIT: also see "FFmpeg and a thousand fixes" [1], suggesting that FFmpeg is
working hard improving the security situation, while libav mainly ignored the
effort.

PPS also i dont like the libav crew

1: [http://googleonlinesecurity.blogspot.se/2014/01/ffmpeg-
and-t...](http://googleonlinesecurity.blogspot.se/2014/01/ffmpeg-and-thousand-
fixes.html)

~~~
camperman
"and running it's binary claims that "ffmpeg is deprecated", which is a
complete lie."

Ubuntu as well. That immediately made up my mind never to use libav.
Incredibly unprofessional since 90 seconds of googling turned up the fact
there was a fork and a dispute.

~~~
klodolph
Well, Ubuntu's package maintainers are mostly Debian package maintainers...
same goes for Mint.

------
gioele
I think the FFmpeg vs libav debate is succinctly described by this quote from
[https://github.com/mpv-player/mpv/wiki/FFmpeg-versus-
Libav](https://github.com/mpv-player/mpv/wiki/FFmpeg-versus-Libav)

> Although we don't agree with everything FFmpeg does, and we like some of
> Libav's general goals and development directions, FFmpeg is just better from
> a practical point of view.

> It shouldn't be forgotten that Libav is doing significant and important
> development, but since everything they do ends up in FFmpeg anyway, there is
> barely any reason to prefer Libav over FFmpeg from the user point of view.

> It's also possible that FFmpeg agrees faster to gross hacks to paint over
> bugs and issues than Libav, however, in the user's perception FFmpeg will
> perform better because of that.

Basically libav is doing things in the proper way but slowly, so they will die
because FFmpeg ships more features although less polished. "The ones that win
are the ones that ship", isn't it?

~~~
SixSigma
> "The ones that win are the ones that ship", isn't it?

Worse is better

~~~
dspillett
_Released_ is better.

------
vezzy-fnord
About time. I'm usually all for forking and variety, but libav truly was an
example of those gratuitous and destructive forks that offered no real
benefit. Though, ultimately, it was the Debian package maintainers' decision
to spread propaganda about ffmpeg being deprecated that was the worst.

As a practical example, I was gridlocked when I tried to compile LightSpark
from Git, due to libswresample not being present, nor practically obtainable.
Editing it out from cmake, predictably, lead to breakage.

Here's a classic article detailing the situation:
[http://blog.pkh.me/p/13-the-ffmpeg-libav-
situation.html](http://blog.pkh.me/p/13-the-ffmpeg-libav-situation.html)

And from the mpv developers: [https://github.com/mpv-player/mpv/wiki/FFmpeg-
versus-Libav](https://github.com/mpv-player/mpv/wiki/FFmpeg-versus-Libav)

~~~
mackal
The biggest advancement that libav brought was forcing the ffmpeg maintainer
to get off his ass and actual lead the project. Shit would still be stagnant
if libav didn't come around.

~~~
keeperofdakeys
When people say "gratuitous and destructive forks", they aren't referring to
the fact that a fork was made, but the method that was used. Instead of
cleanly making a new fork, they tried to take control of ffmpeg itself, making
the situation worse for all. They also perpetuated a rumour that the ffmpeg
project was dead, when it clearly wasn't. Often just the fact that you make
the fork is enough to revitalise the development of the original project, or
it will stagnate naturally as people use the fork.

As a recent example, no one has tried to take over openssl's development. A
number of "fixit" forks have been made, and either openssl will lift their
game, the forks will diverge, or they'll be merged back together.

------
picomancer
It's about time. I was just using ffmpeg today, wanted libx264 lossless
encoding, noticed the deprecation message and lack of libx264 support in the
Ubuntu package, recompiled from source.

------
izacus
As someone who regullary had to help people use ffmpeg on #ffmpeg/Freenode,
explaining why Debian/Ubuntu packages wrong piece of software under "ffmpeg"
package was becoming really tedious.

So thanks to Debian maintainers to fix stupidity.

------
mkhpalm
I've been using ffmpeg packages from deb-multmedia.org repos through the
entire libav period. I'm surprised to hear so many people were going through
all the trouble to build it themselves.

------
Xeoncross
Bringing back FFmpeg is very important point to people like myself that need
lots of tools for video/audio work. Building from source works... but why make
life harder?

------
igravious
This'll make it into Ubuntu when? Any estimates out there?

~~~
danohuiginn
For Ubuntu 14.10, Debian imports will be frozen in a couple of weeks. So
probably it won't make that release, but will be available in 15.04. That's
being available in universe. Somebody might put it into 14.10 backports, as
well, but that would only affect people technical enough to get ffmpeg anyway.
Being used by default would be at least another release on from that, if ever.

That's assuming normal release practices. It could change a bit if Canonical
decided to push it, or if a showstopper bug turned up in libav.

------
VLM
I wonder what Niedermayer would say / has said.

~~~
dtparr
He's commented a few times on the Debian bug here (CTRL-F):
[https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-
bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=729203](https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-
bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=729203)

------
giancarlostoro
"I do not believe you, explain that voodoo to me: How is it that it won't
break all of Debian and make kittens cry?"

I'm easily amused.

------
shmerl
Good, mpv will now get more features.

------
ausjke
eglibc went back to glibc, now ffmpeg comes back to debian, nice!

~~~
shmerl
Now iceweasel should go back to firefox ;)

~~~
e12e
Uh, why? It's pretty much just a rebrand (for trademark license reasons). It's
not the same as the other two examples.

~~~
shmerl
Those reasons are mostly obsolete already. But it was never rebranded back:

[https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=555935](https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=555935)

