gstreamermm new upstream version and possible push to unstable

[Sebastian Dröge]

On So, 2014-01-26 at 20:53 +0100, Philip Rinn wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> On 25.01.2014 12:30, Sebastian Dröge wrote:
> > [...] I personally don't care at all anymore about GStreamer 0.10 and 
> > applications should consider porting to 1.x as soon as possible anyway :)
> > 0.10 is no longer supported by upstream since quite a while.
> 
> Sure, that's true, applications should be ported to Gstreamer 1.0. I asked
> upstream about that some weeks ago but didn't got a reply until today. They are
> on the way porting to Gstreamer 1.0 - that's good news. I'm not sure if there
> will be a version before the jessie freeze as upstream development is quite slow.
> I think it's pretty important to have at least subtitleeditor 0.41 in jessie as
> the current version in testing is from 2009. I'm just a little worried that I'll
> stuck with this version if I don't move my feet now and help to get gstreamermm
> (0.10 and/or 1.0) out of experimental. I'll also help upstream to get their port
> ready but that would also need  gstreamermm in testing.

ACK, however advocating usage of old gstreamermm by putting it into
unstable/testing and the next release is not really ideal :)

> >> [...] Additionally I'd ask to move gstreamermm to unstable as upstream
> >> moved to version 1.0 and it's not likely that they'll break ABI in the 0.10
> >> version.
> > 
> > I'm not sure how useful that is, considering that 0.10 is no longer 
> > maintained. Maybe we should just let the 0.10 version disappear instead?
> 
> I think it's only useful if there is no ported version of subtitleeditor.
> Letting it disappear is only possible if subtitleeditor is ported I'd say.

Well, it's only in experimental currently.

> > [...] Feel free to add yourself as co-maintainer, I can also add your to 
> > pkg-gstreamer if you want to help maintaining the mm bindings.
> > 
> > I'll try to take a look at your changes over the next days, but let's try to
> > find an approach to get rid of 0.10 ASAP instead of wasting more time on it
> > :)
> 
> Yes, It would be better to invest time in the gstreamermm 1.0 bindings but I
> only found a hint in the git repository[1] that version 1.0.8 exists. I didn't
> try to build it but it seems to be a quite hasty release with sill some
> "0.10.11" remnants in the docs.
> Did you already had a look at it? I could try to package it in the next weeks if
> it's not already done.

IMHO the best would be to help upstream getting an 1.x release out ASAP
and then port subtitleeditor. Please try to get a reply from them about
the current status and plans, and what else needs to be done before a
1.x release.

Alternatively you could also just use GStreamer directly in
subtitleeditor instead of using the C++ bindings... not sure if it's a
good idea to have a such strong dependency on a library that is not very
actively maintained.


After we know the plans of gstreamermm upstream, let's check what a
solution for jessie could look like. Maybe we should really just get
gstreamermm 0.10 into unstable for now and put a big fat warning on the
package ;)
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 949 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
URL: <http://lists.alioth.debian.org/pipermail/pkg-gstreamer-maintainers/attachments/20140127/f41e44b5/attachment.sig>