Hi According to our https://trac.ffmpeg.org/wiki/Downstreams Noone and nothing is using 5.0 should i make another release of 5.0 ? should i move 5.0 to olddownloads ? does anyone use it ? plan to use it or know of someone using it ? thx -- Michael GnuPG fingerprint: 9FF2128B147EF6730BADF133611EC787040B0FAB I have never wished to cater to the crowd; for what I know they do not approve, and what they approve I do not know. -- Epicurus
On 28.10.2022 20:23, Michael Niedermayer wrote:
Hi
According to our https://trac.ffmpeg.org/wiki/Downstreams
Noone and nothing is using 5.0 should i make another release of 5.0 ? should i move 5.0 to olddownloads ?
does anyone use it ? plan to use it or know of someone using it ?
thx
I see no reason to keep maintaining it, specially given we had no ABI bump since then.
+1 for moving it to the old downloads Best regards, Reto
On Fri, Oct 28, 2022 at 2:23 PM Michael Niedermayer <michael@niedermayer.cc> wrote:
Hi
According to our https://trac.ffmpeg.org/wiki/Downstreams
Noone and nothing is using 5.0 should i make another release of 5.0 ? should i move 5.0 to olddownloads ?
does anyone use it ? plan to use it or know of someone using it ?
Fedora 36 still uses FFmpeg 5.0 as I discovered there was an ABI break that made upgrading to FFmpeg 5.1 not possible for F36. FFmpeg 5.1 is used for Fedora 37, though. This had apparently been also discovered by openSUSE some time ago: https://build.opensuse.org/package/view_file/multimedia:libs/ffmpeg-5/work-a... Fedora 36 will still be supported until June, so I would appreciate it if another release of 5.0 would be made. Do we have ABI testing in place for submitted patches? I haven't seen any evidence of CI testing of patches submitted to the mailing list, but maybe I'm looking in the wrong place? If there is, maybe we can consider adding some kind of ABI testing for release branches, using tools like libabigail[1] with abidiff[2]? [1]: https://sourceware.org/libabigail/ [2]: https://www.mankier.com/1/abidiff -- 真実はいつも一つ！/ Always, there's only one truth!
On 29.10.2022 20:29, Neal Gompa wrote:
On Fri, Oct 28, 2022 at 2:23 PM Michael Niedermayer <michael@niedermayer.cc> wrote:
Hi
According to our https://trac.ffmpeg.org/wiki/Downstreams
Noone and nothing is using 5.0 should i make another release of 5.0 ? should i move 5.0 to olddownloads ?
does anyone use it ? plan to use it or know of someone using it ?
Fedora 36 still uses FFmpeg 5.0 as I discovered there was an ABI break that made upgrading to FFmpeg 5.1 not possible for F36. FFmpeg 5.1 is used for Fedora 37, though.
Adding new functions does not break ABI, we've been over this in the past. There is no guarantees made, and cannot be made, about running something against an older set of libraries than at compile time.
On Sat, Oct 29, 2022 at 02:29:56PM -0400, Neal Gompa wrote:
On Fri, Oct 28, 2022 at 2:23 PM Michael Niedermayer <michael@niedermayer.cc> wrote:
Hi
According to our https://trac.ffmpeg.org/wiki/Downstreams
Noone and nothing is using 5.0 should i make another release of 5.0 ? should i move 5.0 to olddownloads ?
does anyone use it ? plan to use it or know of someone using it ?
Fedora 36 still uses FFmpeg 5.0 as I discovered there was an ABI break that made upgrading to FFmpeg 5.1 not possible for F36. FFmpeg 5.1 is used for Fedora 37, though.
This had apparently been also discovered by openSUSE some time ago: https://build.opensuse.org/package/view_file/multimedia:libs/ffmpeg-5/work-a...
You can replace 5.0 by 5.1 but not 5.1 by 5.0, The compatibility is only in one way. Iam assuming here you talk about the addition of functions and there is not some other issue iam not aware of.
Fedora 36 will still be supported until June, so I would appreciate it if another release of 5.0 would be made.
I have to admit i feel a bit undecided. Id like to first understand why this situation/"need" exists for fedora but not others
Do we have ABI testing in place for submitted patches? I haven't seen any evidence of CI testing of patches submitted to the mailing list, but maybe I'm looking in the wrong place? If there is, maybe we can consider adding some kind of ABI testing for release branches, using tools like libabigail[1] with abidiff[2]?
[1]: https://sourceware.org/libabigail/ [2]: https://www.mankier.com/1/abidiff
iam not sure there is agreement between you and others of what is a ABI break so the tool maybe will not help. I have generaly done testing with replacing old libraries by new when doing releases. But for me a ABI break is if replacing a library by another breaks some binary that is not rebuild and linked to the new lib. More testing is always good and welcome of course. thx [...] -- Michael GnuPG fingerprint: 9FF2128B147EF6730BADF133611EC787040B0FAB Breaking DRM is a little like attempting to break through a door even though the window is wide open and the only thing in the house is a bunch of things you dont want and which you would get tomorrow for free anyway
On Sun, Oct 30, 2022 at 4:10 PM Michael Niedermayer <michael@niedermayer.cc> wrote:
On Sat, Oct 29, 2022 at 02:29:56PM -0400, Neal Gompa wrote:
On Fri, Oct 28, 2022 at 2:23 PM Michael Niedermayer <michael@niedermayer.cc> wrote:
Hi
According to our https://trac.ffmpeg.org/wiki/Downstreams
Noone and nothing is using 5.0 should i make another release of 5.0 ? should i move 5.0 to olddownloads ?
does anyone use it ? plan to use it or know of someone using it ?
Fedora 36 still uses FFmpeg 5.0 as I discovered there was an ABI break that made upgrading to FFmpeg 5.1 not possible for F36. FFmpeg 5.1 is used for Fedora 37, though.
This had apparently been also discovered by openSUSE some time ago: https://build.opensuse.org/package/view_file/multimedia:libs/ffmpeg-5/work-a...
You can replace 5.0 by 5.1 but not 5.1 by 5.0, The compatibility is only in one way. Iam assuming here you talk about the addition of functions and there is not some other issue iam not aware of.
My understanding is that when using symbol versions, modifying the symbol table creates a breakage on its own.
Fedora 36 will still be supported until June, so I would appreciate it if another release of 5.0 would be made.
I have to admit i feel a bit undecided. Id like to first understand why this situation/"need" exists for fedora but not others
I mostly did this at the advice of Jan from openSUSE and the RPM Fusion ffmpeg maintainers.
Do we have ABI testing in place for submitted patches? I haven't seen any evidence of CI testing of patches submitted to the mailing list, but maybe I'm looking in the wrong place? If there is, maybe we can consider adding some kind of ABI testing for release branches, using tools like libabigail[1] with abidiff[2]?
[1]: https://sourceware.org/libabigail/ [2]: https://www.mankier.com/1/abidiff
iam not sure there is agreement between you and others of what is a ABI break so the tool maybe will not help.
I have generaly done testing with replacing old libraries by new when doing releases. But for me a ABI break is if replacing a library by another breaks some binary that is not rebuild and linked to the new lib.
More testing is always good and welcome of course.
Yeah, I think that qualifying how ABI is validated in a reproducible way would be useful. The abigail tooling can help here, In Fedora, every update runs through abigail validation too. I vaguely recall that it warned me when I did the update in Rawhide, which is how I wound up talking to Jan in openSUSE and RPM Fusion maintainers, who both didn't refresh FFmpeg on stable branches with 5.0 to 5.1. It's also entirely possible that I was *too* cautious, and I'm okay with having a conversation that leads me to do differently in the future. -- 真実はいつも一つ！/ Always, there's only one truth!
Quoting Neal Gompa (2022-10-30 22:04:42)
On Sun, Oct 30, 2022 at 4:10 PM Michael Niedermayer <michael@niedermayer.cc> wrote:
On Sat, Oct 29, 2022 at 02:29:56PM -0400, Neal Gompa wrote:
On Fri, Oct 28, 2022 at 2:23 PM Michael Niedermayer <michael@niedermayer.cc> wrote:
Hi
According to our https://trac.ffmpeg.org/wiki/Downstreams
Noone and nothing is using 5.0 should i make another release of 5.0 ? should i move 5.0 to olddownloads ?
does anyone use it ? plan to use it or know of someone using it ?
Fedora 36 still uses FFmpeg 5.0 as I discovered there was an ABI break that made upgrading to FFmpeg 5.1 not possible for F36. FFmpeg 5.1 is used for Fedora 37, though.
This had apparently been also discovered by openSUSE some time ago: https://build.opensuse.org/package/view_file/multimedia:libs/ffmpeg-5/work-a...
You can replace 5.0 by 5.1 but not 5.1 by 5.0, The compatibility is only in one way. Iam assuming here you talk about the addition of functions and there is not some other issue iam not aware of.
My understanding is that when using symbol versions, modifying the symbol table creates a breakage on its own.
Do you have some authoritative source for this claim? So far all the arguments I've seen were along the lines of "because I say so".
Do we have ABI testing in place for submitted patches? I haven't seen any evidence of CI testing of patches submitted to the mailing list, but maybe I'm looking in the wrong place? If there is, maybe we can consider adding some kind of ABI testing for release branches, using tools like libabigail[1] with abidiff[2]?
[1]: https://sourceware.org/libabigail/ [2]: https://www.mankier.com/1/abidiff
iam not sure there is agreement between you and others of what is a ABI break so the tool maybe will not help.
I have generaly done testing with replacing old libraries by new when doing releases. But for me a ABI break is if replacing a library by another breaks some binary that is not rebuild and linked to the new lib.
More testing is always good and welcome of course.
Yeah, I think that qualifying how ABI is validated in a reproducible way would be useful. The abigail tooling can help here, In Fedora, every update runs through abigail validation too. I vaguely recall that it warned me when I did the update in Rawhide, which is how I wound up talking to Jan in openSUSE and RPM Fusion maintainers, who both didn't refresh FFmpeg on stable branches with 5.0 to 5.1.
It's also entirely possible that I was *too* cautious, and I'm okay with having a conversation that leads me to do differently in the future.
Having automated ABI testing would be definitely a good idea, not all developers understand how ABI compatibility works and there have been breakages (according to our definition) recently. I also have https://github.com/lvc/abi-compliance-checker/ on my to-look-at list, but as always time is lacking. -- Anton Khirnov
On Monday, 31 October 2022 14:03:21 CET Anton Khirnov wrote:
Quoting Neal Gompa (2022-10-30 22:04:42)
On Sun, Oct 30, 2022 at 4:10 PM Michael Niedermayer
<michael@niedermayer.cc> wrote:
On Sat, Oct 29, 2022 at 02:29:56PM -0400, Neal Gompa wrote:
On Fri, Oct 28, 2022 at 2:23 PM Michael Niedermayer
<michael@niedermayer.cc> wrote:
Hi
According to our https://trac.ffmpeg.org/wiki/Downstreams
Noone and nothing is using 5.0 should i make another release of 5.0 ? should i move 5.0 to olddownloads ?
does anyone use it ? plan to use it or know of someone using it ?
Fedora 36 still uses FFmpeg 5.0 as I discovered there was an ABI break that made upgrading to FFmpeg 5.1 not possible for F36. FFmpeg 5.1 is used for Fedora 37, though.
This had apparently been also discovered by openSUSE some time ago: https://build.opensuse.org/package/view_file/multimedia:libs/ffmpeg-5/ work-around-abi-break.patch?expand=1> > You can replace 5.0 by 5.1 but not 5.1 by 5.0, The compatibility is only in one way. Iam assuming here you talk about the addition of functions and there is not some other issue iam not aware of.
My understanding is that when using symbol versions, modifying the symbol table creates a breakage on its own.
Do you have some authoritative source for this claim? So far all the arguments I've seen were along the lines of "because I say so".
Do we have ABI testing in place for submitted patches? I haven't seen any evidence of CI testing of patches submitted to the mailing list, but maybe I'm looking in the wrong place? If there is, maybe we can consider adding some kind of ABI testing for release branches, using tools like libabigail[1] with abidiff[2]?
[1]: https://sourceware.org/libabigail/ [2]: https://www.mankier.com/1/abidiff
iam not sure there is agreement between you and others of what is a ABI break so the tool maybe will not help.
I have generaly done testing with replacing old libraries by new when doing releases. But for me a ABI break is if replacing a library by another breaks some binary that is not rebuild and linked to the new lib.
More testing is always good and welcome of course.
Yeah, I think that qualifying how ABI is validated in a reproducible way would be useful. The abigail tooling can help here, In Fedora, every update runs through abigail validation too. I vaguely recall that it warned me when I did the update in Rawhide, which is how I wound up talking to Jan in openSUSE and RPM Fusion maintainers, who both didn't refresh FFmpeg on stable branches with 5.0 to 5.1.
It's also entirely possible that I was *too* cautious, and I'm okay with having a conversation that leads me to do differently in the future.
Having automated ABI testing would be definitely a good idea, not all developers understand how ABI compatibility works and there have been breakages (according to our definition) recently.
I also have https://github.com/lvc/abi-compliance-checker/ on my to-look-at list, but as always time is lacking.
At libssh we use https://github.com/ansasaki/abimap for symbol versioning. Ask if master could be added to ABI Laboratory: https://abi-laboratory.pro/index.php?view=timeline&l=ffmpeg Just my 2c. Andreas -- Andreas Schneider asn@cryptomilk.org GPG-ID: 8DFF53E18F2ABC8D8F3C92237EE0FC4DCC014E3D
On Mon, Oct 31, 2022 at 02:03:21PM +0100, Anton Khirnov wrote:
Quoting Neal Gompa (2022-10-30 22:04:42)
On Sun, Oct 30, 2022 at 4:10 PM Michael Niedermayer <michael@niedermayer.cc> wrote:
On Sat, Oct 29, 2022 at 02:29:56PM -0400, Neal Gompa wrote:
On Fri, Oct 28, 2022 at 2:23 PM Michael Niedermayer <michael@niedermayer.cc> wrote:
Hi
According to our https://trac.ffmpeg.org/wiki/Downstreams
Noone and nothing is using 5.0 should i make another release of 5.0 ? should i move 5.0 to olddownloads ?
does anyone use it ? plan to use it or know of someone using it ?
Fedora 36 still uses FFmpeg 5.0 as I discovered there was an ABI break that made upgrading to FFmpeg 5.1 not possible for F36. FFmpeg 5.1 is used for Fedora 37, though.
This had apparently been also discovered by openSUSE some time ago: https://build.opensuse.org/package/view_file/multimedia:libs/ffmpeg-5/work-a...
You can replace 5.0 by 5.1 but not 5.1 by 5.0, The compatibility is only in one way. Iam assuming here you talk about the addition of functions and there is not some other issue iam not aware of.
My understanding is that when using symbol versions, modifying the symbol table creates a breakage on its own.
Do you have some authoritative source for this claim? So far all the arguments I've seen were along the lines of "because I say so".
Or in absence of this, a testcase that shows some sort of anomaly when a global/static symbol is added to C source code. thx [...] -- Michael GnuPG fingerprint: 9FF2128B147EF6730BADF133611EC787040B0FAB I am the wisest man alive, for I know one thing, and that is that I know nothing. -- Socrates
On Sat, Oct 29, 2022 at 02:29:56PM -0400, Neal Gompa wrote:
On Fri, Oct 28, 2022 at 2:23 PM Michael Niedermayer <michael@niedermayer.cc> wrote:
Hi
According to our https://trac.ffmpeg.org/wiki/Downstreams
Noone and nothing is using 5.0 should i make another release of 5.0 ? should i move 5.0 to olddownloads ?
does anyone use it ? plan to use it or know of someone using it ?
Fedora 36 still uses FFmpeg 5.0 as I discovered there was an ABI break that made upgrading to FFmpeg 5.1 not possible for F36. FFmpeg 5.1 is used for Fedora 37, though.
why is https://trac.ffmpeg.org/wiki/Downstreams not listing any of that ? thx [...] -- Michael GnuPG fingerprint: 9FF2128B147EF6730BADF133611EC787040B0FAB The bravest are surely those who have the clearest vision of what is before them, glory and danger alike, and yet notwithstanding go out to meet it. -- Thucydides
On Sun, Oct 30, 2022 at 4:16 PM Michael Niedermayer <michael@niedermayer.cc> wrote:
On Sat, Oct 29, 2022 at 02:29:56PM -0400, Neal Gompa wrote:
On Fri, Oct 28, 2022 at 2:23 PM Michael Niedermayer <michael@niedermayer.cc> wrote:
Hi
According to our https://trac.ffmpeg.org/wiki/Downstreams
Noone and nothing is using 5.0 should i make another release of 5.0 ? should i move 5.0 to olddownloads ?
does anyone use it ? plan to use it or know of someone using it ?
Fedora 36 still uses FFmpeg 5.0 as I discovered there was an ABI break that made upgrading to FFmpeg 5.1 not possible for F36. FFmpeg 5.1 is used for Fedora 37, though.
why is https://trac.ffmpeg.org/wiki/Downstreams not listing any of that ?
I didn't know it existed. Updated! :) -- 真実はいつも一つ！/ Always, there's only one truth!
On Sat, Oct 29, 2022 at 02:29:56PM -0400, Neal Gompa wrote:
On Fri, Oct 28, 2022 at 2:23 PM Michael Niedermayer <michael@niedermayer.cc> wrote:
Hi
According to our https://trac.ffmpeg.org/wiki/Downstreams
Noone and nothing is using 5.0 should i make another release of 5.0 ? should i move 5.0 to olddownloads ?
does anyone use it ? plan to use it or know of someone using it ?
Fedora 36 still uses FFmpeg 5.0 as I discovered there was an ABI break that made upgrading to FFmpeg 5.1 not possible for F36. FFmpeg 5.1 is used for Fedora 37, though.
This had apparently been also discovered by openSUSE some time ago: https://build.opensuse.org/package/view_file/multimedia:libs/ffmpeg-5/work-a...
Fedora 36 will still be supported until June, so I would appreciate it if another release of 5.0 would be made.
In absence of objections, i will make another 5.0 release but i will not make one after that if there is no solid evidence of a need for one. dont want to have users stuck on a buggy version while this is resolved thx [...] -- Michael GnuPG fingerprint: 9FF2128B147EF6730BADF133611EC787040B0FAB Those who are best at talking, realize last or never when they are wrong.
participants (6)
-
Andreas Schneider -
Anton Khirnov -
AV Preservation by reto.ch (lists) -
Michael Niedermayer -
Neal Gompa -
Timo Rothenpieler