[gentoo-dev] ffmpeg vs libav choice of default

[gentoo-dev] ffmpeg vs libav choice of default

[Ulrich Mueller]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 416 bytes --]

With the recent introduction of the libav USE flag, the Gentoo default
for ffmpeg vs libav is more pronounced than it was before (with libav
being listed first in || ( ) dependencies).

In the replies to http://forums.gentoo.org/viewtopic.php?p=7694982
several users have expressed their preference for ffmpeg.

So can someone please remind me what are the technical reasons why we
prefer libav over ffmpeg?

Ulrich

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 490 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] ffmpeg vs libav choice of default

[Michał Górny]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 693 bytes --]

Dnia 2015-02-04, o godz. 10:12:12
Ulrich Mueller <ulm@gentoo.org> napisał(a):

> With the recent introduction of the libav USE flag, the Gentoo default
> for ffmpeg vs libav is more pronounced than it was before (with libav
> being listed first in || ( ) dependencies).
> 
> In the replies to http://forums.gentoo.org/viewtopic.php?p=7694982
> several users have expressed their preference for ffmpeg.
> 
> So can someone please remind me what are the technical reasons why we
> prefer libav over ffmpeg?

We have a developer inside, so it's easier to bring some sanity in.
Then ffmpeg people copy each patch, so double benefit for us :P.

-- 
Best regards,
Michał Górny

[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 949 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] ffmpeg vs libav choice of default

[Ben de Groot]

On 4 February 2015 at 17:21, Michał Górny <mgorny@gentoo.org> wrote:
> Dnia 2015-02-04, o godz. 10:12:12
> Ulrich Mueller <ulm@gentoo.org> napisał(a):
>
>> With the recent introduction of the libav USE flag, the Gentoo default
>> for ffmpeg vs libav is more pronounced than it was before (with libav
>> being listed first in || ( ) dependencies).
>>
>> In the replies to http://forums.gentoo.org/viewtopic.php?p=7694982
>> several users have expressed their preference for ffmpeg.
>>
>> So can someone please remind me what are the technical reasons why we
>> prefer libav over ffmpeg?

From an upstream that I care about:
https://github.com/mpv-player/mpv/wiki/FFmpeg-versus-Libav

Based on that I would say we should switch back the default to ffmpeg.
-- 
Cheers,

Ben | yngwin
Gentoo developer

Re: [gentoo-dev] ffmpeg vs libav choice of default

[Pacho Ramos]

El mié, 04-02-2015 a las 17:24 +0800, Ben de Groot escribió:
[...]
> From an upstream that I care about:
> https://github.com/mpv-player/mpv/wiki/FFmpeg-versus-Libav
> 
> Based on that I would say we should switch back the default to ffmpeg.

Thanks a lot for the link

Re: [gentoo-dev] ffmpeg vs libav choice of default

[Jason A. Donenfeld]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 411 bytes --]

On Wed, Feb 4, 2015 at 10:24 AM, Ben de Groot <yngwin@gentoo.org> wrote:
>
>
> From an upstream that I care about:
> https://github.com/mpv-player/mpv/wiki/FFmpeg-versus-Libav
>
> Based on that I would say we should switch back the default to ffmpeg.
>

I can vouch for the content of that link and the expert opinion of its
author. As a consequence, I would high recommend switching back to ffmpeg
as default.

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 854 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] ffmpeg vs libav choice of default

[Michał Górny]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1097 bytes --]

Dnia 2015-02-04, o godz. 17:24:03
Ben de Groot <yngwin@gentoo.org> napisał(a):

> On 4 February 2015 at 17:21, Michał Górny <mgorny@gentoo.org> wrote:
> > Dnia 2015-02-04, o godz. 10:12:12
> > Ulrich Mueller <ulm@gentoo.org> napisał(a):
> >
> >> With the recent introduction of the libav USE flag, the Gentoo default
> >> for ffmpeg vs libav is more pronounced than it was before (with libav
> >> being listed first in || ( ) dependencies).
> >>
> >> In the replies to http://forums.gentoo.org/viewtopic.php?p=7694982
> >> several users have expressed their preference for ffmpeg.
> >>
> >> So can someone please remind me what are the technical reasons why we
> >> prefer libav over ffmpeg?
> 
> From an upstream that I care about:
> https://github.com/mpv-player/mpv/wiki/FFmpeg-versus-Libav
> 
> Based on that I would say we should switch back the default to ffmpeg.

From what I heard, that upstream likes to change its opinion
frequently, pretty much based on which upstream he is pissed at
the moment. But it's just rumors.

-- 
Best regards,
Michał Górny

[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 949 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] ffmpeg vs libav choice of default

[Jason A. Donenfeld]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 557 bytes --]

On Wed, Feb 4, 2015 at 10:55 AM, Michał Górny <mgorny@gentoo.org> wrote:
>
> From what I heard, that upstream likes to change its opinion
> frequently, pretty much based on which upstream he is pissed at
> the moment. But it's just rumors.
>

This is most certainly untrue. Please stop disseminating FUD like this.
There is zero factual basis for it.

Fortunately, the wiki history of the above linked page retains its history,
and we can quickly disprove this petty claim:
https://github.com/mpv-player/mpv/wiki/FFmpeg-versus-Libav/_history

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 1049 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] ffmpeg vs libav choice of default

[Jason A. Donenfeld]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 494 bytes --]

I'd like to insert, early on in this thread, that we must leave personal
biases and associations *out* of this discussion, and instead focus on
technical merits and analyses only. Thus, I would *strongly encourage* that
authors of libav and ffmpeg will *refrain from joining this discussion* in
order to keep unnecessary biases out, which perhaps the sole exception of
sending stray commit sha1s along if needed. I believe previous Gentoo
policy to have been ruled by this non-technical aegis.

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 539 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] ffmpeg vs libav choice of default

[Michał Górny]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 819 bytes --]

Dnia 2015-02-04, o godz. 11:04:57
"Jason A. Donenfeld" <zx2c4@gentoo.org> napisał(a):

> I'd like to insert, early on in this thread, that we must leave personal
> biases and associations *out* of this discussion, and instead focus on
> technical merits and analyses only. Thus, I would *strongly encourage* that
> authors of libav and ffmpeg will *refrain from joining this discussion* in
> order to keep unnecessary biases out, which perhaps the sole exception of
> sending stray commit sha1s along if needed. I believe previous Gentoo
> policy to have been ruled by this non-technical aegis.

I disagree. The authors/maintainers of both have the most to say here
since they actually may know *something* rather than the FUD that's
been going around like forever.

-- 
Best regards,
Michał Górny

[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 949 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] ffmpeg vs libav choice of default

[Rich Freeman]

On Wed, Feb 4, 2015 at 5:09 AM, Michał Górny <mgorny@gentoo.org> wrote:
> Dnia 2015-02-04, o godz. 11:04:57
> "Jason A. Donenfeld" <zx2c4@gentoo.org> napisał(a):
>
>> I'd like to insert, early on in this thread, that we must leave personal
>> biases and associations *out* of this discussion, and instead focus on
>> technical merits and analyses only. Thus, I would *strongly encourage* that
>> authors of libav and ffmpeg will *refrain from joining this discussion* in
>> order to keep unnecessary biases out, which perhaps the sole exception of
>> sending stray commit sha1s along if needed. I believe previous Gentoo
>> policy to have been ruled by this non-technical aegis.
>
> I disagree. The authors/maintainers of both have the most to say here
> since they actually may know *something* rather than the FUD that's
> been going around like forever.
>

++

Those with the greatest stake in a decision are often the ones who
have the most information to provide.  That does of course include a
risk of bias, but you don't get the best decision possible by having a
conversation limited to people who have never heard of ffmpeg or
libav.  :)

-- 
Rich

Re: [gentoo-dev] ffmpeg vs libav choice of default

[Ben de Groot]

On 4 February 2015 at 17:55, Michał Górny <mgorny@gentoo.org> wrote:
> Dnia 2015-02-04, o godz. 17:24:03
> Ben de Groot <yngwin@gentoo.org> napisał(a):
>
>> From an upstream that I care about:
>> https://github.com/mpv-player/mpv/wiki/FFmpeg-versus-Libav
>>
>> Based on that I would say we should switch back the default to ffmpeg.
>
> From what I heard, that upstream likes to change its opinion
> frequently, pretty much based on which upstream he is pissed at
> the moment. But it's just rumors.

Rumours have no place here. Let's focus on the technical arguments.

-- 
Cheers,

Ben | yngwin
Gentoo developer

Re: [gentoo-dev] ffmpeg vs libav choice of default

[Michał Górny]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 822 bytes --]

Dnia 2015-02-04, o godz. 18:01:57
Ben de Groot <yngwin@gentoo.org> napisał(a):

> On 4 February 2015 at 17:55, Michał Górny <mgorny@gentoo.org> wrote:
> > Dnia 2015-02-04, o godz. 17:24:03
> > Ben de Groot <yngwin@gentoo.org> napisał(a):
> >
> >> From an upstream that I care about:
> >> https://github.com/mpv-player/mpv/wiki/FFmpeg-versus-Libav
> >>
> >> Based on that I would say we should switch back the default to ffmpeg.
> >
> > From what I heard, that upstream likes to change its opinion
> > frequently, pretty much based on which upstream he is pissed at
> > the moment. But it's just rumors.
> 
> Rumours have no place here. Let's focus on the technical arguments.

If I were to be picky, 'upstream I care about' is not a technical
argument either.

-- 
Best regards,
Michał Górny

[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 949 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] ffmpeg vs libav choice of default

[vivo75]

Il 04/02/2015 10:24, Ben de Groot ha scritto:
> From an upstream that I care about:
> https://github.com/mpv-player/mpv/wiki/FFmpeg-versus-Libav Based on
> that I would say we should switch back the default to ffmpeg. 

on that page I see a information about why gentoo should stick with
libav, because cleaner code for a distro is very important.

also ebuilds seem to reflect that:

grep -v -e '^\s*#' -e '^\s*$' ffmpeg/ffmpeg-2.5.3.ebuild | wc -l
299

grep -v -e '^\s*#' -e '^\s*$' libav/libav-9.17.ebuild  | wc -l
248

cheers,
Francesco Riosa

Re: [gentoo-dev] ffmpeg vs libav choice of default

[Michał Górny]

"vivo75@gmail.com" <vivo75@gmail.com> napisał:

>Il 04/02/2015 10:24, Ben de Groot ha scritto:
>> From an upstream that I care about:
>> https://github.com/mpv-player/mpv/wiki/FFmpeg-versus-Libav Based on
>> that I would say we should switch back the default to ffmpeg. 
>
>on that page I see a information about why gentoo should stick with
>libav, because cleaner code for a distro is very important.
>
>also ebuilds seem to reflect that:
>
>grep -v -e '^\s*#' -e '^\s*$' ffmpeg/ffmpeg-2.5.3.ebuild | wc -l
>299
>
>grep -v -e '^\s*#' -e '^\s*$' libav/libav-9.17.ebuild  | wc -l
>248

Just to be clear, please don't judge projects by ebuild maintainer's code quality or style. Not to mention that positive quality factors such as having more configure options increase ebuild line count easily.

>
>cheers,
>Francesco Riosa

-- 
Michał Górny

Re: [gentoo-dev] ffmpeg vs libav choice of default

[Jason A. Donenfeld]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 547 bytes --]

On Wed, Feb 4, 2015 at 10:21 AM, Michał Górny <mgorny@gentoo.org> wrote:

> Dnia 2015-02-04, o godz. 10:12:12
> Ulrich Mueller <ulm@gentoo.org> napisał(a):
>
> > So can someone please remind me what are the technical reasons why we
> > prefer libav over ffmpeg?
>
> We have a developer inside
>

I think it's time to end this cronyism, and instead examine things on their
technical merit alone. I believe we should go with the opinion of the
upstream mpv authors, who make a very clear and compelling case for ffmpeg
as default.

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 956 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] ffmpeg vs libav choice of default

[Alexis Ballier]

On Wed, 4 Feb 2015 10:12:12 +0100
Ulrich Mueller <ulm@gentoo.org> wrote:

> With the recent introduction of the libav USE flag, the Gentoo default
> for ffmpeg vs libav is more pronounced than it was before (with libav
> being listed first in || ( ) dependencies).
> 
> In the replies to http://forums.gentoo.org/viewtopic.php?p=7694982
> several users have expressed their preference for ffmpeg.
> 
> So can someone please remind me what are the technical reasons why we
> prefer libav over ffmpeg?


good luck !

wait for other opinions, but I'd say: libav has a cleaner codebase and
stricter development rules. (NB: some gentoo devs are member of the core
libav dev team)


IMHO, from a pure consumer POV where I want to play a random video and
my programs using the libraries not to break, ffmpeg is much better
(more codecs get in faster, API is preserved a bit longer), so I never
understood nor agreed with that choice of default.


Alexis.

Re: [gentoo-dev] ffmpeg vs libav choice of default

[Michał Górny]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1910 bytes --]

Dnia 2015-02-04, o godz. 10:26:06
Alexis Ballier <aballier@gentoo.org> napisał(a):

> On Wed, 4 Feb 2015 10:12:12 +0100
> Ulrich Mueller <ulm@gentoo.org> wrote:
> 
> > With the recent introduction of the libav USE flag, the Gentoo default
> > for ffmpeg vs libav is more pronounced than it was before (with libav
> > being listed first in || ( ) dependencies).
> > 
> > In the replies to http://forums.gentoo.org/viewtopic.php?p=7694982
> > several users have expressed their preference for ffmpeg.
> > 
> > So can someone please remind me what are the technical reasons why we
> > prefer libav over ffmpeg?
> 
> 
> good luck !

I pretty much agree with Alexis' points. To clarify...

> wait for other opinions, but I'd say: libav has a cleaner codebase and
> stricter development rules. (NB: some gentoo devs are member of the core
> libav dev team)

I'd say both projects suck hard at lack of understanding of API/ABI
stability. However, if one of them is going to finally get some
stability, it's rather going to be libav. But we're far from that, so...

> IMHO, from a pure consumer POV where I want to play a random video and
> my programs using the libraries not to break, ffmpeg is much better
> (more codecs get in faster, API is preserved a bit longer), so I never
> understood nor agreed with that choice of default.

It's easiest to look at the trackers:

- ffmpeg-2 [1] -- 26/26 fixed,
- ffmpeg-2.4 [2] -- 3/3 fixed (but unsure if there won't be more),
- libav-9 [3] -- 55/55 fixed,
- libav-10 [4] -- 11/25 fixed.

No offense here but in my experience, ffmpeg support in Gentoo is fixed
faster than libav.

[1]:https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=476490
[2]:https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=524568
[3]:https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=443230
[4]:https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=509294

-- 
Best regards,
Michał Górny

[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 949 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] ffmpeg vs libav choice of default

[Pacho Ramos]

El mié, 04-02-2015 a las 11:40 +0100, Michał Górny escribió:
[...]
> It's easiest to look at the trackers:
> 
> - ffmpeg-2 [1] -- 26/26 fixed,
> - ffmpeg-2.4 [2] -- 3/3 fixed (but unsure if there won't be more),
> - libav-9 [3] -- 55/55 fixed,
> - libav-10 [4] -- 11/25 fixed.
> 
> No offense here but in my experience, ffmpeg support in Gentoo is fixed
> faster than libav.
> 
> [1]:https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=476490
> [2]:https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=524568
> [3]:https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=443230
> [4]:https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=509294
> 

Also I am unsure how many packages are working with recent libav
versions:
https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=474408

Re: [gentoo-dev] ffmpeg vs libav choice of default

[Luca Barbato]

On 04/02/15 11:40, Michał Górny wrote:
> It's easiest to look at the trackers:
>
> - ffmpeg-2 [1] -- 26/26 fixed,
> - ffmpeg-2.4 [2] -- 3/3 fixed (but unsure if there won't be more),
> - libav-9 [3] -- 55/55 fixed,
> - libav-10 [4] -- 11/25 fixed.
>
> No offense here but in my experience, ffmpeg support in Gentoo is fixed
> faster than libav.

Given I have to fix the downstream issues first in Libav and then 
whenever FFmpeg decides to drop the stale API they get those for free 
I'm not surprised.

As per Libav, I managed to convince my fellow developers not to drop 
2-years old APIs for some more time, since there is enough orphaned 
software using it (thus why libav 10 and 11 had been kept API (source) 
compatible) and we (as Libav) spent a decent chunk of time to get 
updates for a good number of them.

Sadly the balance between the requirements of our active users, that 
demands better APIs and the latent users, that did not update since 
version 0.8 or so, was a bit too much toward the former.

I'd like not to have to discuss more than this since I'm strongly 
related to Libav and I have no time to get involved in a discussion with 
fans.

lu

Re: [gentoo-dev] ffmpeg vs libav choice of default

[Alexis Ballier]

On Wed, 04 Feb 2015 13:57:55 +0100
Luca Barbato <lu_zero@gentoo.org> wrote:

> On 04/02/15 11:40, Michał Górny wrote:
> > It's easiest to look at the trackers:
> >
> > - ffmpeg-2 [1] -- 26/26 fixed,
> > - ffmpeg-2.4 [2] -- 3/3 fixed (but unsure if there won't be more),
> > - libav-9 [3] -- 55/55 fixed,
> > - libav-10 [4] -- 11/25 fixed.
> >
> > No offense here but in my experience, ffmpeg support in Gentoo is
> > fixed faster than libav.
> 
> Given I have to fix the downstream issues first in Libav and then 
> whenever FFmpeg decides to drop the stale API they get those for free 
> I'm not surprised.
> 

yeah, the above numbers are a bit unfair since most libav-9 fixes/bugs
would have applied to ffmpeg 2 I think.

Alexis.

Re: [gentoo-dev] ffmpeg vs libav choice of default

[Luca Barbato]

On 04/02/15 14:25, Jason A. Donenfeld wrote:
> By now it should be clear to most people that everything goes smoother,
> works better for the end user, and causes less breakage when *ffmpeg is the
> default, not libav*.

"Works better" is a matter of perception, if I (and the few that help me 
not afraid of having rabid FFmpeg-fans bite them) fix the bulk of the 
issues early surely those that use FFmpeg get a smoother experience.

Again it is one project parasiting everything the other does.

Currently I'm trying to get Libav not to drop the old APIs as hard as I 
could so at least that part would be even.

Probably I should stop caring about the breakages myself and wait until 
they hit FFmpeg and let other do the work so I can spend my spare time 
in implementing more features instead.

lu

Re: [gentoo-dev] ffmpeg vs libav choice of default

[Ben de Groot]

On 4 February 2015 at 17:26, Alexis Ballier <aballier@gentoo.org> wrote:
> On Wed, 4 Feb 2015 10:12:12 +0100
> Ulrich Mueller <ulm@gentoo.org> wrote:
>
>> With the recent introduction of the libav USE flag, the Gentoo default
>> for ffmpeg vs libav is more pronounced than it was before (with libav
>> being listed first in || ( ) dependencies).
>>
>> In the replies to http://forums.gentoo.org/viewtopic.php?p=7694982
>> several users have expressed their preference for ffmpeg.
>>
>> So can someone please remind me what are the technical reasons why we
>> prefer libav over ffmpeg?
>
>
> good luck !
>
> wait for other opinions, but I'd say: libav has a cleaner codebase and
> stricter development rules. (NB: some gentoo devs are member of the core
> libav dev team)
>
>
> IMHO, from a pure consumer POV where I want to play a random video and
> my programs using the libraries not to break, ffmpeg is much better
> (more codecs get in faster, API is preserved a bit longer), so I never
> understood nor agreed with that choice of default.

I think for our users the latter is more important.

After all the discussion we had here and on the forums,
I propose we change the default to ffmpeg.

Thoughts?
-- 
Cheers,

Ben | yngwin
Gentoo developer

Re: [gentoo-dev] ffmpeg vs libav choice of default

[Alexis Ballier]

On Sun, 15 Feb 2015 01:32:40 +0800
Ben de Groot <yngwin@gentoo.org> wrote:

> On 4 February 2015 at 17:26, Alexis Ballier <aballier@gentoo.org>
> wrote:
> > On Wed, 4 Feb 2015 10:12:12 +0100
> > Ulrich Mueller <ulm@gentoo.org> wrote:
> >
> >> With the recent introduction of the libav USE flag, the Gentoo
> >> default for ffmpeg vs libav is more pronounced than it was before
> >> (with libav being listed first in || ( ) dependencies).
> >>
> >> In the replies to http://forums.gentoo.org/viewtopic.php?p=7694982
> >> several users have expressed their preference for ffmpeg.
> >>
> >> So can someone please remind me what are the technical reasons why
> >> we prefer libav over ffmpeg?
> >
> >
> > good luck !
> >
> > wait for other opinions, but I'd say: libav has a cleaner codebase
> > and stricter development rules. (NB: some gentoo devs are member of
> > the core libav dev team)
> >
> >
> > IMHO, from a pure consumer POV where I want to play a random video
> > and my programs using the libraries not to break, ffmpeg is much
> > better (more codecs get in faster, API is preserved a bit longer),
> > so I never understood nor agreed with that choice of default.
> 
> I think for our users the latter is more important.
> 
> After all the discussion we had here and on the forums,
> I propose we change the default to ffmpeg.
> 
> Thoughts?


I'd say let libav be default in developer profiles, ffmpeg in base.
It's good to have the stricter one default for developers in order not
to make it completely unusable for users.


Alexis.

Re: [gentoo-dev] ffmpeg vs libav choice of default

[Matthias Maier]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 256 bytes --]


> So can someone please remind me what are the technical reasons why we
> prefer libav over ffmpeg?

*ugh* Please no.

What about leaving the default (if there ever was such a default) as it
is and avoid the otherwise imminent trainwreck?

Best,
Matthias

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 820 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] ffmpeg vs libav choice of default

[Ulrich Mueller]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 574 bytes --]

>>>>> On Wed, 04 Feb 2015, Matthias Maier wrote:

>> So can someone please remind me what are the technical reasons why we
>> prefer libav over ffmpeg?

> *ugh* Please no.

> What about leaving the default (if there ever was such a default) as it
> is and avoid the otherwise imminent trainwreck?

As I said, so far the default was very weak, namely by ordering of
dependencies in a || ( ) group.

This has changed since the libav flag is now enabled in profiles:
http://sources.gentoo.org/cgi-bin/viewvc.cgi/gentoo-x86/profiles/base/make.defaults?r1=1.121&r2=1.122

Ulrich

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 490 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] ffmpeg vs libav choice of default

[Mike Auty]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Hi,

Whilst the default *is* still in place (and particularly after the
recent news article detailing that users should be using libav), could
we please keep commits like the following until *after* we've made an
agreed upon decision please?

http://sources.gentoo.org/cgi-bin/viewvc.cgi/gentoo-x86/profiles/package.mask?r1=1.16328&r2=1.16329

Anyone using mpv (because mplayer does not work with libav, and they
were directed to use mpv by the news article) will now be hit by
blockers attempting to reinstall ffmpeg.

It's fine to have disagreements, but airing them in front of the users
like this is not an ideal situation...

Mike  5:)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0

iKYEARECAGYFAlTSE/pfFIAAAAAALgAoaXNzdWVyLWZwckBub3RhdGlvbnMub3Bl
bnBncC5maWZ0aGhvcnNlbWFuLm5ldEZGQjEyM0ZDRDBCRjcwREE1MzA0MjNBREJC
QkFENkEyNkMyMDE1N0EACgkQu7rWomwgFXos8ACeIq/rqIdp9DAowP2qVyrUQFfn
4rUAn1coOLGSk60pA9VSbKdXBnPiiSki
=aOWg
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Re: [gentoo-dev] ffmpeg vs libav choice of default

[Daniel Campbell]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On 02/04/2015 04:43 AM, Mike Auty wrote:
> It's fine to have disagreements, but airing them in front of the 
> users like this is not an ideal situation...

As a user and prospective developer, why? Transparency is important to
open communities like Gentoo's, and reading the discussions can give
users and developers alike some context that they wouldn't normally
get if they hadn't seen the discussion(s).
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2

iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJU1GVIAAoJEJUrb08JgYgH4AIH/j68vCFgRO8xm19TW/AqUlmH
eT0JLeabLgPx7TDvaXPXGZo23acwAn6c9G/d+xFgX2oYKj+Cz+KSDOK9eQ/84w+U
3HYvA3jZUfYHcueiJK8/f2JPZ3sfdEwcARl3qjjMWpHSx5u97VA47VkRhQtP7VAF
tktKc1HePqY/HjK+/dYyT1TqxQL8PPGK3k3jbdHQ37k2WxiWrbhTSsrkPXJskwuD
Zaqga8I4OcakTIJ8HNqLCGgzPnNne4O9aLFYgTxpSaEiogObJ4oC8OF+iuJs+sr3
a39S4RExHjaUy63UNb/l32HDnwy+gSbgb4dse69Ylzt0MwxvMP+KNxEf9MMhV2M=
=/4Pe
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

[gentoo-dev] Re: ffmpeg vs libav choice of default

[Duncan]

Daniel Campbell posted on Thu, 05 Feb 2015 22:55:05 -0800 as excerpted:

> On 02/04/2015 04:43 AM, Mike Auty wrote:
>> It's fine to have disagreements, but airing them in front of the users
>> like this is not an ideal situation...
> 
> As a user and prospective developer, why? Transparency is important to
> open communities like Gentoo's, and reading the discussions can give
> users and developers alike some context that they wouldn't normally get
> if they hadn't seen the discussion(s).

(As a user myself...) I believe he's referring not to the technical 
disagreements themselves, but to the practical effects on users of 
unmasking, remasking, unmasking, changing USE flags, changing the /
meaning/ of USE flags, changing USE flag defaults... before a final plan 
of action is settled on.

IOW, the problem isn't the disagreement or the openness of the 
discussion, it's that various changes are happening before there's a 
settled plan, causing far more disruption for the users in terms of 
having to "fix" USE flags and keywords and masks via package.* then they 
should be having to deal with, most of it simply due to premature action 
before a final action plan is agreed to that will (ideally) ultimately 
minimize required user changes and "fixes".


Tho in the past list discussions (and I gather the IRC channels as well, 
tho I don't personally do IRC so what I know of that is second hand) did 
get vicious and personal at times, until enough objections (including 
from gentoo sponsors apparently) forced a toning down, and these days 
people get a warning when it starts getting personal, and can get a 
posting suspension "cool-down period" if it gets too bad.

But I'm not aware of such mandatory cool-down timeouts being imposed for 
some time now, and even warnings are fewer these days, as the lists have 
become far more professional in tone and in general a more pleasant place 
to discuss things, even when there are disagreements, because everyone 
knows it /cannot/ be allowed to get personal, now.

And I for one am glad of that.  =:^)

-- 
Duncan - List replies preferred.   No HTML msgs.
"Every nonfree program has a lord, a master --
and if you use the program, he is your master."  Richard Stallman

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: ffmpeg vs libav choice of default

[Mike Auty]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Hiya,

On 06/02/15 08:48, Duncan wrote:
> Daniel Campbell posted on Thu, 05 Feb 2015 22:55:05 -0800 as
> excerpted:
> 
>> As a user and prospective developer, why? Transparency is
>> important to open communities like Gentoo's, and reading the
>> discussions can give users and developers alike some context that
>> they wouldn't normally get if they hadn't seen the
>> discussion(s).
> 
> (As a user myself...) I believe he's referring not to the technical
>  disagreements themselves, but to the practical effects on users of
>  unmasking, remasking, unmasking, changing USE flags, changing the
> / meaning/ of USE flags, changing USE flag defaults... before a
> final plan of action is settled on.

Duncan was absolutely right, and I communicated myself poorly.  I have
no issue with them discussing the best course of action.  I positively
would like to get this situation resolved as quickly as possible!  I
was concerned that a warning which had been in place in package.mask
since September was removed by a different developer than the one who
put it in place, and that a package was unmasked (while a USE flag was
masked) which then forced everyone who read the portage news article
and swapped mplayer to mpv based on the article, to then be told they
have to rebuild with ffmpeg after all, and potentially rebuild a lot
of other packages because of that.  The mask of the USE flag even
removed the possibility of building the newer mpv with libav, even
though it's actually possible (so users who'd unmasked >=libav-10,
could no longer build mpv-0.7.x when the had previously).

I don't care which way it gets sorted out, but having such direct
effects on users, without agreement or even discussion of the action
beforehand is what I'd like to avoid (and then poorly phrased as
"airing in front of the users", for which I apologize)...

Mike  5:)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0

iKYEARECAGYFAlTVc7tfFIAAAAAALgAoaXNzdWVyLWZwckBub3RhdGlvbnMub3Bl
bnBncC5maWZ0aGhvcnNlbWFuLm5ldEZGQjEyM0ZDRDBCRjcwREE1MzA0MjNBREJC
QkFENkEyNkMyMDE1N0EACgkQu7rWomwgFXqPrgCfdyve0LLT1eeMPTo8+sPaLs7s
4TYAn2joniuA4LOPbU03XRLBXoh7gWX/
=lSq2
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: ffmpeg vs libav choice of default

[Ben de Groot]

On 7 February 2015 at 10:08, Mike Auty <ikelos@gentoo.org> wrote:
> [...] I
> was concerned that a warning which had been in place in package.mask
> since September was removed by a different developer than the one who
> put it in place,

I discussed this beforehand with said developer on IRC.

> and that a package was unmasked (while a USE flag was
> masked) which then forced everyone who read the portage news article
> and swapped mplayer to mpv based on the article, to then be told they
> have to rebuild with ffmpeg after all, and potentially rebuild a lot
> of other packages because of that.

I was not aware of mpv upstream preference for ffmpeg when that news
item was written, or I would have brought up that issue. You are right
that the resulting situation is more confusing than it should be.
Maybe I should have insisted on a news item, even tho maksbotan didn't
think that was necessary.

Do you think a news item to explain this situation and giving explicit
instructions for users who wish to stay with libav would be useful?

> The mask of the USE flag even
> removed the possibility of building the newer mpv with libav

No. Users can unmask the useflag and build mpv with libav if they wish.

-- 
Cheers,

Ben | yngwin
Gentoo developer

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: ffmpeg vs libav choice of default

[Mike Auty]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Hiya,

On 07/02/15 05:16, Ben de Groot wrote:
> I discussed this beforehand with said developer on IRC.

Ok, that wasn't clear from the commit message.

> Do you think a news item to explain this situation and giving
> explicit instructions for users who wish to stay with libav would
> be useful?

No, I think the coincidence of the timing was unfortunate, but it's
done now, and if it had been done a month or so after the first news
item, it wouldn't have needed any explanation, so probably best just
to leave it now.  Perhaps a forums article, just so the instructions
are available somewhere, but I don't think it deserves a fully fledged
news article.

> No. Users can unmask the useflag and build mpv with libav if they
> wish.

You're quite right, the point I was trying to make was that unmasking
a USE flag is a very uncommon event, and as such I think seen as
riskier than simply unmasking a package.  It doesn't stop people
building the newer mpv, it just makes them jump through more hoops to
follow the news article's guidance.  If you're happy with that
requirement for that package then there's no real problem...

Mike  5:)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0

iKYEARECAGYFAlTWN7xfFIAAAAAALgAoaXNzdWVyLWZwckBub3RhdGlvbnMub3Bl
bnBncC5maWZ0aGhvcnNlbWFuLm5ldEZGQjEyM0ZDRDBCRjcwREE1MzA0MjNBREJC
QkFENkEyNkMyMDE1N0EACgkQu7rWomwgFXqTMQCgoAmuIE3YISgo0dEc1l/5DMT5
y+oAn2wLZG2Wds5Is5cLKbksrCTvjyq6
=NwzJ
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: ffmpeg vs libav choice of default

[Jason A. Donenfeld]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 155 bytes --]

The votes keep pouring in. Ffmpeg is the preference of Gentoo users, as
well as the majority of Gentoo developers, and by a very relevant upstream
author.

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 208 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: ffmpeg vs libav choice of default

[Ian Whyman]

On 8 February 2015 at 03:20, Jason A. Donenfeld <zx2c4@gentoo.org> wrote:
> The votes keep pouring in. Ffmpeg is the preference of Gentoo users, as well
> as the majority of Gentoo developers, and by a very relevant upstream
> author.

I don't think a forum poll, or a poll of users for that matter is
great way to build a distribution, in fact it may be very worst way I
can think of. I wouldn't like to comment of the preferences of my
fellow developers, but I might suggest to put this to bed with a vote.

With regards to packages both Gstreamer and Handbrake upstreams prefer
libav, though again I don't think that is great way to pick.

So long as libav is effectively dictating the API then by defaulting
to ffmpeg we are just delaying the inevitable breakage htting the
tree. I know there are people who think we shouldn't break unstable,
but I personally prefer a faster moving model with an amount of
breakage.

-- 
Ian Whyman
www.gentoo.org

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: ffmpeg vs libav choice of default

[Pacho Ramos]

El dom, 08-02-2015 a las 12:19 +0000, Ian Whyman escribió:
[...]
> So long as libav is effectively dictating the API then by defaulting
> to ffmpeg we are just delaying the inevitable breakage htting the
> tree. I know there are people who think we shouldn't break unstable,
> but I personally prefer a faster moving model with an amount of
> breakage.
> 

I have no problem with making that breakage land the "testing" tree...
but having bugs like this in stable doesn't make me think libav is a
good default (at least for now):
https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=474408

Regarding the "gstreamer preference", well, it's not exactly that:
upstream supports either the internal libav lib, one concrete libav
version and one concrete ffmpeg version per cycle. Once we patch it to
support more libav/ffmpeg versions we are on our own (like it's the case
now as, for example, you would need to run the development upstream
version for libav-11, 1.4.x version for libav-10 and 1.2.x version for
libav-9).

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: ffmpeg vs libav choice of default

[Alexis Ballier]

On Sun, 8 Feb 2015 12:19:18 +0000
Ian Whyman <thev00d00@gentoo.org> wrote:

> On 8 February 2015 at 03:20, Jason A. Donenfeld <zx2c4@gentoo.org>
> wrote:
> > The votes keep pouring in. Ffmpeg is the preference of Gentoo
> > users, as well as the majority of Gentoo developers, and by a very
> > relevant upstream author.
> 
> I don't think a forum poll, or a poll of users for that matter is
> great way to build a distribution, in fact it may be very worst way I
> can think of. I wouldn't like to comment of the preferences of my
> fellow developers, but I might suggest to put this to bed with a vote.


A poll for which is default does make sense: if 90% of users were to
use the non-default, there is no point of having such a default.
Whether the forum is a good representing sample is another debate.


What we need instead of such endless debate & happy bashing (been
there, done that) is people doing the work. That's what will improve
the distribution. I thought letting libav be the default would improve
that; unfortunately this is not the case today: libav ebuilds are good,
tree-wide integration is not. I find it a bit sad and sarcastic that
we're close to have ffmpeg-2.2 stable while libav-10 is not even
unmasked: One big feature of the two versions is the h265/hevc decoder,
and as I understood it, most of the work has been done on the libav
side...

Alexis.

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: ffmpeg vs libav choice of default

[Luca Barbato]

On 08/02/15 17:13, Alexis Ballier wrote:
> What we need instead of such endless debate & happy bashing (been
> there, done that) is people doing the work. That's what will improve
> the distribution. I thought letting libav be the default would improve
> that;

If nobody helps fixing the orphaned and near orphaned applications we 
distribute nothing good happens and sadly in the past months I had been 
busy with more rl tasks.

> unfortunately this is not the case today: libav ebuilds are good,
> tree-wide integration is not. I find it a bit sad and sarcastic that
> we're close to have ffmpeg-2.2 stable while libav-10 is not even
> unmasked: One big feature of the two versions is the h265/hevc decoder,
> and as I understood it, most of the work has been done on the libav
> side...

libav-10 and libav-11 are the same api wise, sadly I had to wait for 
handbrake to provide a new release and I hadn't time to install and 
check all the near orphaned application that call direct the ffmpeg command.

I had no problems with using libav-11 since it was released but I kept 
it masked while patching stuff.

Sadly the time I can spend doing opensource stuff can be compressed from 
time to time and maybe is nicer develop interesting stuff such as useful 
API and features than write tons of s:CODEC_ID:AV_CODEC_ID: over 
countless packages.

lu

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: ffmpeg vs libav choice of default

[Alexis Ballier]

On Sun, 08 Feb 2015 23:34:57 +0100
Luca Barbato <lu_zero@gentoo.org> wrote:

> Sadly the time I can spend doing opensource stuff can be compressed
> from time to time and maybe is nicer develop interesting stuff such
> as useful API and features than write tons of s:CODEC_ID:AV_CODEC_ID:
> over countless packages.

can't agree more; by people I really meant fresh blood; I had been
doing such boring tasks for the past years and am also busy with other
things these days; even ffmpeg integration is not in the shape it used
to be.

(nb: you can see that this precise one is mostly fixed already.)

Alexis.

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: ffmpeg vs libav choice of default

[Luca Barbato]

On 09/02/15 10:17, Alexis Ballier wrote:
> (nb: you can see that this precise one is mostly fixed already.)
>

I hope it is completely fixed already =\

lu

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: ffmpeg vs libav choice of default

[Fabio Erculiani]

If only libav and ffmpeg developers would stop breaking their API on
every release...
Just break it once and for all. It's so sad that I still can't upgrade
from libav-9 because of this.

Feature request: could you stop breaking the API for a couple of
years? Thanks. If you say that you have to, well, I won't believe you.

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: ffmpeg vs libav choice of default

[Luca Barbato]

On 14/02/15 19:41, Fabio Erculiani wrote:
> If only libav and ffmpeg developers would stop breaking their API on
> every release...
> Just break it once and for all. It's so sad that I still can't upgrade
> from libav-9 because of this.
>
> Feature request: could you stop breaking the API for a couple of
> years? Thanks. If you say that you have to, well, I won't believe you.
>

Libav 10 and Libav 11 had no api removal for that reason and probably 
Libav 12 will see only few items deprecated since 2 years removed.

lu

Re: [gentoo-dev] ffmpeg vs libav choice of default

[Ben de Groot]

On 4 February 2015 at 20:43, Mike Auty <ikelos@gentoo.org> wrote:
> Whilst the default *is* still in place (and particularly after the
> recent news article detailing that users should be using libav), could
> we please keep commits like the following until *after* we've made an
> agreed upon decision please?
>
> http://sources.gentoo.org/cgi-bin/viewvc.cgi/gentoo-x86/profiles/package.mask?r1=1.16328&r2=1.16329
>
> Anyone using mpv (because mplayer does not work with libav, and they
> were directed to use mpv by the news article) will now be hit by
> blockers attempting to reinstall ffmpeg.
>
> It's fine to have disagreements, but airing them in front of the users
> like this is not an ideal situation...

That would suggest political motives or something of the sort. But
that is far from the truth. Newer mpv versions were masked for many
months, for no apparently valid reason, except that the libav versions
on which it optionally (!) depended were masked.

Since we introduced the libav useflag, we have now a way to finally
make mpv-0.7* (using the upstream recommended ffmpeg as default)
visible to ~arch users, without the need to unmask it. Users who wish
to use libav with it, can do so by unmasking the useflag and the
relevant libav version. (While before they would have had to unmask
both mpv and libav. The resulting change is minor.)

Fewer users will now need to unmask mpv-0.7*. Besides, it is a
reminder that upstream recommends ffmpeg, which comes as a surprise to
many.

And as a result, we can unmask the newest version of smplayer, which
can now function as a GUI frontend for mpv as well.

I would say this is an overall improvement for our end-users. I don't
want to get into the politics of it, but just look at it from a
practical perspective.

-- 
Cheers,

Ben | yngwin
Gentoo developer

Re: [gentoo-dev] ffmpeg vs libav choice of default

[Mike Auty]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Hiya,

On 06/02/15 11:49, Ben de Groot wrote:
> Since we introduced the libav useflag, we have now a way to
> finally make mpv-0.7* (using the upstream recommended ffmpeg as
> default) visible to ~arch users, without the need to unmask it.
> Users who wish to use libav with it, can do so by unmasking the
> useflag and the relevant libav version. (While before they would
> have had to unmask both mpv and libav. The resulting change is
> minor.)

I guess I see knowing how to unmask USE flags (uncommon event) as more
difficult than unmasking a couple of packages (much more common
event).  It's also particularly confusing given that there was a news
article published saying libav was now the default and that people
could explicitly swap to mpv with libav.  The news article might have
been published prematurely or without checking, I've no idea.

Either way, what's going on at the moment is causing users confusion,
and I was just suggesting that the decisions be made first and then
action taken, rather than this back and forth we're having with
packages and USE flags and masking of all kinds, which is not giving
our users a good experience, even if the change is for the best.

Mike  5:)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0

iKYEARECAGYFAlTVeoJfFIAAAAAALgAoaXNzdWVyLWZwckBub3RhdGlvbnMub3Bl
bnBncC5maWZ0aGhvcnNlbWFuLm5ldEZGQjEyM0ZDRDBCRjcwREE1MzA0MjNBREJC
QkFENkEyNkMyMDE1N0EACgkQu7rWomwgFXpcrgCggW9zbw+7ZTfO2CZ75w40voS4
Fp4An31h4XyQ6YGnvEw1Py7bdEcXRDqk
=Or5S
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Re: [gentoo-dev] ffmpeg vs libav choice of default

[Michał Górny]

Ulrich Mueller <ulm@gentoo.org> napisał:

>>>>>> On Wed, 04 Feb 2015, Matthias Maier wrote:
>
>>> So can someone please remind me what are the technical reasons why
>we
>>> prefer libav over ffmpeg?
>
>> *ugh* Please no.
>
>> What about leaving the default (if there ever was such a default) as
>it
>> is and avoid the otherwise imminent trainwreck?
>
>As I said, so far the default was very weak, namely by ordering of
>dependencies in a || ( ) group.
>
>This has changed since the libav flag is now enabled in profiles:
>http://sources.gentoo.org/cgi-bin/viewvc.cgi/gentoo-x86/profiles/base/make.defaults?r1=1.121&r2=1.122
>
>Ulrich


It wasn't only weak but quite inconsistent too. Some packages had their own || deps, with different order.

-- 
Michał Górny

Re: [gentoo-dev] ffmpeg vs libav choice of default

[Alexis Ballier]

On Wed, 04 Feb 2015 14:30:56 +0100
Michał Górny <mgorny@gentoo.org> wrote:
> 
> It wasn't only weak but quite inconsistent too. Some packages had
> their own || deps, with different order.
> 

this was to reflect upstreams preferences

Re: [gentoo-dev] ffmpeg vs libav choice of default

[Michał Górny]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 526 bytes --]

Dnia 2015-02-04, o godz. 14:41:06
Alexis Ballier <aballier@gentoo.org> napisał(a):

> On Wed, 04 Feb 2015 14:30:56 +0100
> Michał Górny <mgorny@gentoo.org> wrote:
> > 
> > It wasn't only weak but quite inconsistent too. Some packages had
> > their own || deps, with different order.
> > 
> 
> this was to reflect upstreams preferences

The point is, the default was so weak that Portage's decision could
have been randomly influenced by ordering of packages in depgraph.

-- 
Best regards,
Michał Górny

[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 949 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] ffmpeg vs libav choice of default

[Ian Stakenvicius]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA256

On 04/02/15 09:27 AM, Michał Górny wrote:
> Dnia 2015-02-04, o godz. 14:41:06 Alexis Ballier
> <aballier@gentoo.org> napisał(a):
> 
>> On Wed, 04 Feb 2015 14:30:56 +0100 Michał Górny
>> <mgorny@gentoo.org> wrote:
>>> 
>>> It wasn't only weak but quite inconsistent too. Some packages
>>> had their own || deps, with different order.
>>> 
>> 
>> this was to reflect upstreams preferences
> 
> The point is, the default was so weak that Portage's decision
> could have been randomly influenced by ordering of packages in
> depgraph.
> 

In other words, we didn't actually have a default, we just had a means
that portage would choose one of them if the end-user haddn't chosen
already.

This to me is still the ideal solution (not the || deps due to the
issues they have, but the soft default) -- why is it that we need to
actually choose or force a default implementation in the profiles anyhow??


-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2

iF4EAREIAAYFAlTSMV4ACgkQ2ugaI38ACPDlOwD+JHd0OPGfcz0m/i4+nJW7jWSF
hrpLj7kJrSuWuMUDYQMA/03GKhbIr9ZXNb3OetA0qUHKcrcrEnbirKiFO8vbD5Ex
=/WPf
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Re: [gentoo-dev] ffmpeg vs libav choice of default

[Michał Górny]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1308 bytes --]

Dnia 2015-02-04, o godz. 09:49:02
Ian Stakenvicius <axs@gentoo.org> napisał(a):

> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA256
> 
> On 04/02/15 09:27 AM, Michał Górny wrote:
> > Dnia 2015-02-04, o godz. 14:41:06 Alexis Ballier
> > <aballier@gentoo.org> napisał(a):
> > 
> >> On Wed, 04 Feb 2015 14:30:56 +0100 Michał Górny
> >> <mgorny@gentoo.org> wrote:
> >>> 
> >>> It wasn't only weak but quite inconsistent too. Some packages
> >>> had their own || deps, with different order.
> >>> 
> >> 
> >> this was to reflect upstreams preferences
> > 
> > The point is, the default was so weak that Portage's decision
> > could have been randomly influenced by ordering of packages in
> > depgraph.
> > 
> 
> In other words, we didn't actually have a default, we just had a means
> that portage would choose one of them if the end-user haddn't chosen
> already.
> 
> This to me is still the ideal solution (not the || deps due to the
> issues they have, but the soft default) -- why is it that we need to
> actually choose or force a default implementation in the profiles anyhow??

Because binary flag has to have a value :P. And anyway, having
a default has the advantage that people don't have to bother when they
don't care.

-- 
Best regards,
Michał Górny

[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 949 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] ffmpeg vs libav choice of default

[Rich Freeman]

On Wed, Feb 4, 2015 at 9:49 AM, Ian Stakenvicius <axs@gentoo.org> wrote:
>
> This to me is still the ideal solution (not the || deps due to the
> issues they have, but the soft default) -- why is it that we need to
> actually choose or force a default implementation in the profiles anyhow??
>

I think this is an option that should probably at least be on the
table.  We seem to have about a half-dozen ways we can handle this,
and they all involve pain to users/developers/etc just in different
ways.

If this nonsense keeps up all that much longer, I wonder if we'll
start seeing everybody just bundling their preferred implementation in
their packages.

-- 
Rich

Re: [gentoo-dev] ffmpeg vs libav choice of default

[George Shapovalov]

On Wednesday 04 February 2015 09:49:02 Ian Stakenvicius wrote:
> In other words, we didn't actually have a default, we just had a means
> that portage would choose one of them if the end-user haddn't chosen
> already.
> 
> This to me is still the ideal solution (not the || deps due to the
> issues they have, but the soft default) -- why is it that we need to
> actually choose or force a default implementation in the profiles anyhow??
Because it was causing obscure blocks when trying to build/update sufficiently 
complex system (e.g. pulling in mplayer and vlc simultaneously). I hit this a 
few times recently while rebuilding a few systems, which caused me to go and 
search for "wtf all this mess is about?" and finding exactly that link with 
explanation that was already cited in this thread (by developer of some viewer 
named similarly to vlc - vmp??).

On the technical side: setting -libav +ffmpeg explicitly seemed to work the 
best. I had an impression that the other way around was not as robust - I 
tried to enforce libav, but that was before reading on this issue, so I don't 
remember what was the state of ffmpeg. I just remember having to look at the 
emerge --tree -pv output to figure out that these two flags were in conflict.. 

George

Re: Re: [gentoo-dev] ffmpeg vs libav choice of default

[Andreas K. Huettel]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 691 bytes --]

> This to me is still the ideal solution (not the || deps due to the
> issues they have, but the soft default) -- why is it that we need to
> actually choose or force a default implementation in the profiles anyhow??

Because blockers resulted whenever two different packages made portage pick 
two different implementations. Which is a natural result of "weak preferences" 
in one place combined with "try to avoid uninstalling A and installing B" and 
"hard dependencies" in another place. 

Because the messy & chaotic virtual solution did not provide any deterministic 
way to rebuild reverse deps when needed.

-- 
Andreas K. Huettel
Gentoo Linux developer
kde, council

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part. --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 951 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] ffmpeg vs libav choice of default

[Chí-Thanh Christopher Nguyễn]

Ulrich Mueller schrieb:
> In the replies to http://forums.gentoo.org/viewtopic.php?p=7694982
> several users have expressed their preference for ffmpeg.

To help finding out what users actually think, I added a poll to the 
forum to ask them about their preference.
https://forums.gentoo.org/viewtopic-t-1010096.html


Best regards,
Chí-Thanh Christopher Nguyễn

Re: [gentoo-dev] ffmpeg vs libav choice of default

[Ben de Groot]

On 4 February 2015 at 21:49, Chí-Thanh Christopher Nguyễn
<chithanh@gentoo.org> wrote:
> Ulrich Mueller schrieb:
>>
>> In the replies to http://forums.gentoo.org/viewtopic.php?p=7694982
>> several users have expressed their preference for ffmpeg.
>
> To help finding out what users actually think, I added a poll to the forum
> to ask them about their preference.
> https://forums.gentoo.org/viewtopic-t-1010096.html

They seem pretty strongly in favour of changing the default back to ffmpeg:
https://forums.gentoo.org/viewtopic-t-1010096-postdays-0-postorder-asc-vote-viewresult.html

-- 
Cheers,

Ben | yngwin
Gentoo developer

Re: [gentoo-dev] ffmpeg vs libav choice of default

[hasufell]

Ben de Groot:
> On 4 February 2015 at 21:49, Chí-Thanh Christopher Nguyễn
> <chithanh@gentoo.org> wrote:
>> Ulrich Mueller schrieb:
>>>
>>> In the replies to http://forums.gentoo.org/viewtopic.php?p=7694982
>>> several users have expressed their preference for ffmpeg.
>>
>> To help finding out what users actually think, I added a poll to the forum
>> to ask them about their preference.
>> https://forums.gentoo.org/viewtopic-t-1010096.html
> 
> They seem pretty strongly in favour of changing the default back to ffmpeg:
> https://forums.gentoo.org/viewtopic-t-1010096-postdays-0-postorder-asc-vote-viewresult.html
> 

57% is not "pretty strongly". It's a bit more than the half.

Re: [gentoo-dev] ffmpeg vs libav choice of default

[Rich Freeman]

On Thu, Feb 5, 2015 at 11:20 AM, hasufell <hasufell@gentoo.org> wrote:
>
> 57% is not "pretty strongly". It's a bit more than the half.
>

Sure, but libav as the default only got 5% of the vote.  I think the
poll suffers from over-complexity.  :)

I don't think we should be putting all of our stock in forum polls,
but I wouldn't be surprised to find that ffmpeg gets a lot more use in
general.

-- 
Rich

Re: [gentoo-dev] ffmpeg vs libav choice of default

[Chí-Thanh Christopher Nguyễn]

Rich Freeman schrieb:
> On Thu, Feb 5, 2015 at 11:20 AM, hasufell <hasufell@gentoo.org> wrote:
>> 57% is not "pretty strongly". It's a bit more than the half.
>>
> Sure, but libav as the default only got 5% of the vote.  I think the
> poll suffers from over-complexity.  :)

I tried to choose the options' wording carefully, in order to get as 
much information as possible from a single poll.

As it currently stands we have 144 votes (sorted descending by 
popularity). Time for some preliminary analysis:

Which should be the default in Gentoo, ffmpeg or libav?
A. I prefer ffmpeg, and it should be the default. 61%
B. I don't care about the default, but it should be easy to use the 
non-default, even if that causes a less smooth experience for users of 
the default. 14%
C. I don't care about the default, but users should have a smooth 
experience with it, even if that means additional hardships for those 
who choose differently. 6%
D. I prefer libav, and it should be the default. 5%
E. I prefer ffmpeg, but I am fine if libav is the default. 4%
F. I prefer libav, but I am fine if ffmpeg is the default. 2%
G. I don't care either way. 2%
H. None of the above/Other 1%

There were two respondents for "Other". The first does not really 
consider ffmpeg and libav to be interchangeable packages any more. The 
second said that he wants to be able to install both ffmpeg and libav at 
the same time, even if that is currently infeasible.

This means that,
61% disagree with the current default and want it changed to ffmpeg (A), 
while
38% are fine with the current default libav (B+C+D+E+F+G).

5% would be against changing the default from libav (E),
94% would be fine if the default was changed to ffmpeg (A+B+C+D+F+G).

22% of respondents did not express a preference for either ffmpeg/libav 
(B+C+G), including
14% who say that it should still be easy to choose the non-default 
option, even at the expense of a few bumps in the user experience (B),
6% who say that a good user experience is more important than having the 
choice (C).

In case the default remains at libav, 79% would want to have an easy way 
of switching to ffmpeg (A+B+E).
In case the default is changed to ffmpeg, 21% would want to have an easy 
way of switching to libav (B+D+F).


Best regards,
Chí-Thanh Christopher Nguyễn

[gentoo-dev] Re: ffmpeg vs libav choice of default

[Duncan]

Chí-Thanh Christopher Nguyễn posted on Fri, 06 Feb 2015 12:57:35 +0100 as
excerpted:

> I tried to choose the options' wording carefully, in order to get as
> much information as possible from a single poll.

Thanks for your wisdom in wording (which, contrary to some others, I 
agreed with, because far too often I see polls that simply don't have a 
choice appropriately matching my nuanced preference, and this one goes to 
some lengths to address that and thus, with appropriate analysis, should 
provide more accurate data, at least for those who responded).

And thanks for the wise analysis as well.  Seems to well summarize 
things. =:^)

-- 
Duncan - List replies preferred.   No HTML msgs.
"Every nonfree program has a lord, a master --
and if you use the program, he is your master."  Richard Stallman

Re: [gentoo-dev] ffmpeg vs libav choice of default

[Ben de Groot]

On 6 February 2015 at 00:20, hasufell <hasufell@gentoo.org> wrote:
> Ben de Groot:
>> On 4 February 2015 at 21:49, Chí-Thanh Christopher Nguyễn
>> <chithanh@gentoo.org> wrote:
>>> Ulrich Mueller schrieb:
>>>>
>>>> In the replies to http://forums.gentoo.org/viewtopic.php?p=7694982
>>>> several users have expressed their preference for ffmpeg.
>>>
>>> To help finding out what users actually think, I added a poll to the forum
>>> to ask them about their preference.
>>> https://forums.gentoo.org/viewtopic-t-1010096.html
>>
>> They seem pretty strongly in favour of changing the default back to ffmpeg:
>> https://forums.gentoo.org/viewtopic-t-1010096-postdays-0-postorder-asc-vote-viewresult.html
>>
>
> 57% is not "pretty strongly". It's a bit more than the half.
>

If we add up the votes to a simpler overview, we get at this point:

ffmpeg      66.4%
libav        8.2%
don't care  24.0%
other        1.4%

I think that's pretty clear.

-- 
Cheers,

Ben | yngwin
Gentoo developer

Re: [gentoo-dev] ffmpeg vs libav choice of default

[Jason A. Donenfeld]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 152 bytes --]

Welp, the votes clearly show ffmpeg is desired by users.

Can we stop this nonsense and just do that? The people have spoken.

Ffmpeg shall be default.

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 333 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] ffmpeg vs libav choice of default

[Ciaran McCreesh]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 347 bytes --]

On Sat, 7 Feb 2015 00:03:26 +0100
"Jason A. Donenfeld" <zx2c4@gentoo.org> wrote:
> Welp, the votes clearly show ffmpeg is desired by users.
> 
> Can we stop this nonsense and just do that? The people have spoken.

Usually when there's a forums poll, the wise course of action is to do
the opposite of what it says.

-- 
Ciaran McCreesh

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 181 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] ffmpeg vs libav choice of default

[Ben de Groot]

On 7 February 2015 at 07:03, Jason A. Donenfeld <zx2c4@gentoo.org> wrote:
> Welp, the votes clearly show ffmpeg is desired by users.
>
> Can we stop this nonsense and just do that? The people have spoken.
>
> Ffmpeg shall be default.

Except Gentoo is not a democracy.

It is still important data to take into consideration tho.

-- 
Cheers,

Ben | yngwin
Gentoo developer