[Pkg-javascript-devel] Bug#760297: Is MediaElement.js fit for testing?

[Jonas Smedegaard]

Quoting David Prévot (2014-09-05 03:57:02)
> On Fri, Sep 05, 2014 at 01:21:52AM +0200, Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
>> Quoting Debian Bug Tracking System (2014-09-04 23:24:05)
>
>>>> # Please, stop overriding the maintainer’s call without reason.
>>
>> I ask a question
>
> I already pointed at explanations before,

...and I pointed out how that reference did not answer the question.

> I just want you to stop playing, and advise you to get in touch with 
> the release team if you want them to enforce an RC-bug here.

Yes, that's an option if we cannot work as a team.  Or one of us can 
leave the team.


> Now, to the facts:
> 
> - MediaElement is currently embedded in at least two packages
>   (wordpress and owncloud). As such, preventing the current package to
>   enter testing is pointless (it’s already there), and harmful (code
>   duplication, security tracking, etc.)

Removing (all or some of) MediaElement from wordpress and owncloud 
packages do not render those packages "mostly useless" by their users.

Whether that is also true for the js-mediaelement package depends on 
answer to my question.


> - All functionalities of the package are not yet enabled, and that is
>   documented in the package description. As proven (at least via
>   owncloud: I’ve not investigated how/if the media playing works in
>   wordpress), the current package allows to play video and audio in a
>   browser, which make it all but useless.

Please elaborate on that proof: Is the opposite true - i.e. if 
MediaElement is completely missing do owncloud then no longer allow 
playing video and audio in a [modern] browser?


> - Since the initial packaging that has been approved by ftpmasters,
>   upstream documented a way to rebuild the Flash parts. They use Flex
>   SDK to do so (the present bug as been documented as blocked by the
>   relevant RFP one day after you opened it).

Ftpmaster approval relates to legality, and therefore irrelevant for 
this discussion on qualitative assesment of the package.

Great that there is hope that MediaElement some day can make sense to 
package.


>Use an alternative build system to the one used upstream, (e.g.,
>     as3compile from swftools). 

> I already tried [building with swftools], but back then, the package 
> wasn’t yet accepted in the archive, which made the effort less 
> attractive.

Hence the question if the approach you considered "attractive" produces 
relevant result for our users: Do we currently ship the main 
functionality of MediaElement or a smaller/different subset than that?

Can you please elaborate on that question.


 - Jonas

-- 
 * Jonas Smedegaard - idealist & Internet-arkitekt
 * Tlf.: +45 40843136  Website: http://dr.jones.dk/

 [x] quote me freely  [ ] ask before reusing  [ ] keep private
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 949 bytes
Desc: signature
URL: <http://lists.alioth.debian.org/pipermail/pkg-javascript-devel/attachments/20140905/357c323f/attachment.sig>