return of the mpalyer package?!

Robbie Harwood rharwood at
Tue Jul 21 02:30:51 UTC 2015

"Miguel A. Colón Vélez" <debian.micove at> writes:

>>> My understanding was that Robbie attempted to go through the procedure
>>> to join the team but that there was some miscommunication so no progress
>>> happened.
>> He did ask,
>> Hopefully someone with admin right in the group can help to add him
>> if he is still interested and there are no objections.
> As a followup to this.
> Robbie please tell me if you are still interested in joining the team
> so you can be added in Alioth.

Hi.  Apologies for the delay; I needed some time so that I could be sure
my reply was levelheaded.  As frustrating as I'm sure this has been for
you, it has been no less for me.

Yes, I'm still interested in joining the team.  The most important thing
to me here is that mplayer be available in debian and that there be
support behind it.  Toward that end, I believe I can contribute.

Regarding process, I have a couple grievances I want to air.

1. I did *not* know that anything was being worked on, and I apologize
   for the duplicate effort.  I tried (several times, actually) to
   contact you, and I received no reply either on IRC (which is how you
   contacted me) or to my mail to the list (which is what your wiki says
   I'm supposed to do to join the team).  Therefore, I assumed that
   there was no work being done, since you had offered cooperation.  It
   saddens me that the default response is to declare me hostile rather
   than out of the loop.

2. Further, there has been an RFE/ITP bug open for mplayer+mencoder
   since date -d 'Fri, 03 Oct 2014 01:08:23 +0200'.  It is number
   763826.  This is my first attempt at maintaining a package and I am
   not overly familiar with the process, but my understanding is that
   the workflow goes RFE->ITP->package upload, in rough terms.  I
   announced intent to package (and set bug status as such) on date -d
   'Wed, 12 Nov 2014 16:58:51 -0500'.  It has not changed since.  Again,
   I am new, but it is VERY surprising to me that one could expect to
   upload a package without owning the ITP.  It is especially irritating
   for this to be dubbed a hijack, as to me it feels the opposite.

All that being said: yes, I'm still interested in seeing this through.

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 818 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <>

More information about the pkg-multimedia-maintainers mailing list