https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2051008 Neal Gompa <ngompa13@xxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags| |needinfo?(dominik@greysecto | |r.net) --- Comment #17 from Neal Gompa <ngompa13@xxxxxxxxx> --- (In reply to Nicolas Chauvet (kwizart) from comment #15) > (In reply to Neal Gompa from comment #14) > . > > > Why? Ideally we'd be able to expand our ffmpeg over time... > > > Not what is concern disabled software as there are enough cases of fedora > > We (as rpmfusion) do not want to complement this package as this will break > many software expecting full (upstream, non disabled) ffmpeg at runtime to > not crash. > > Also, we don't want to back the remote work of making this package > compatible to the non-replacement policy of rpmfusion. > So because of that, I'm going to suspend the non replacement policy if ever > this unbacked package is accepted as ffmpeg. > > I'm personally emotionally exhausted by this kind of felony toward our > project (rpmfusion) sustainability. Rather than getting angry at us about this, let's ask Dominik which way he prefers. He's the RPM Fusion maintainer for ffmpeg anyway, so it's his call. Dominik, what would you prefer? 1. "ffmpeg" in Fedora and "ffmpeg-freeworld" in RPM Fusion 2. "ffmpeg-free" in Fedora and "ffmpeg" in RPM Fusion There are trade-offs for each choice: Option 1 means that packages that explicitly request the ffmpeg package by name will be able to have their dependencies satisfied by the Fedora one. This means that there may be some short-term pain by applications that expect more codecs from our ffmpeg than are available at this time. However, this will force us to find avenues/mechanisms to dynamically expand codec availability sooner rather than later. Option 2 means that packages that explicitly request the ffmpeg package by name will not work without RPM Fusion. This avoids the short-term pain I mentioned in option 1, but eliminates our incentive to work on dynamically expanding codec availability in the package in Fedora. Note that neither choice requires Epoch bumps or any such EVR mangling, since the names would be different. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are always notified about changes to this product and component You are on the CC list for the bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2051008 _______________________________________________ package-review mailing list -- package-review@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
