Select provider of libav* libraries

Bálint Réczey balint at
Wed Apr 29 21:48:23 UTC 2015

2015-04-29 20:56 GMT+02:00 Alessio Treglia <alessio at>:
> 'Evening Ladies and Gentlemen,
> I am afraid that I have to revive this discussion once again now that
> Jessie is out as we have plenty of time before starting doing any
> major work for Stretch: it's really the right time to make a final
> decision about this subject.
> The need to get this dichotomy solved may be found in Moritz's last email:
> On Wed, Apr 29, 2015 at 7:22 PM, Moritz Mühlenhoff <jmm at> wrote:
>> To properly migrate over a daemon they need to co-exist for a stable
>> release, while a lib does not. Stretch will only have one of them.
> [snip]
>> Having both for a year along each other will only waste people's time. Now
>> at the beginning of the release cycle is the time to make a decision,
>> not by dragging things into a year as of today. Picking one of the two
>> won't be any simpler in 12 months.
> It appears clear to me that the security team wouldn't be too happy to
> support both FFmpeg and libav:
> Therefore the question still remains:
> On Tue, Aug 26, 2014 at 11:36 PM, Benjamin Drung <bdrung at> wrote:
>> So I am asking you: Should we ship libav or FFmpeg? Can we reach a
>> consensus on this topic?
According to my observations FFmpeg has better security support,
accepts enhancement requests faster and is strongly preferred by
XBMC/Kodi upstream thus I vote for FFmpeg as being the one library we
ship if we can ship only one.

I disagree with the question and I in my eyes both of the libraries
should be allowed to enter testing. That would be fair handling of
maintainers' and upstreams' work.


More information about the pkg-multimedia-maintainers mailing list