Bug#739079: transition: libav10

[Bálint Réczey]

Hi Reinhard,

2014-03-01 17:01 GMT+01:00 Reinhard Tartler <siretart at gmail.com>:
> On Tue, Feb 18, 2014 at 4:48 PM, Moritz Mühlenhoff <jmm at inutil.org> wrote:
>> I made a rebuild and the transitions isn't ready to go at all.
>>
>> IMO the API changes are far too agressive; if 2/3 of all packages in
>> the archive FTBFS, the affected APIs are clearly not that deprecated.
>>
>> I can understand the removal of ill-designed functions if it helps
>> to streamline/robustify the code, but e.g. the removal of CODEC_ID*
>> causes lots of churn for no measurable benefit.
>
> As Anton points out, the API changes are agressive, but done for good
> reason, most of which are documented in the transition guide. It is a
> wiki and will be extended as necessary. The CODEC_ID issue is indeed
> annoying, but kinda critical for C++ applications. Also note that the
> new names are supported even in debian/stable, so there is really no
> need for backwards compatibility here.
>
> Anyway, now two weeks after, I think things look much better now:
>
> https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/pkgreport.cgi?tag=libav10;users=jmm@debian.org
>
> Most packages have patches readily available or need a new upstream
> version. Note that more and more packages require libav10 to build,
> and are held back in experimental for this reason.
>
> The todo list of bugs without a patch is also shrinking rapidly:
> https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/pkgreport.cgi?tag=libav10;users=jmm@debian.org;exclude=tags%3Apatch%2C+fixed-upstream
>
> From the velocity of how fast packages are being patched, I think we
> are in a rather good position to start this transition.
When do you plan starting the transition? How about opening it with
Libav 10.1? ;-)
I think we are in a pretty good position for startin now.

Cheers,
Balint