5 ms·

And in my opinion it's still very confusing. If there was a more confusing version of this message and it was refined to this then I'm inclined to believe the d

And in my opinion it's still very confusing. If there was a more confusing version of this message and it was refined to this then I'm inclined to believe the deception was intentional. libav is not the successor to ffmpeg. libav is a fork. How'd Debian move so quickly to a(n) (immature) fork? Politics.

phire 11y ago
No, it moved because the forkers were also the Debian package maintainers. Basically it was a big split down the middle, the entire project split in half.
- sjwright 11y ago
  Which makes Debian's return to FFmpeg all the more noteworthy.
- roghummal 11y ago
  So it was political, like I said. Not to kick 'em while they're down but it certainly wasn't on technical merit.
kierank 11y ago
That's not really true since the majority of pre-fork ffmpeg developers agreed to fork to libav. As I say to people this is like the Catholic/Protestant split, both sides think they are the one-true-ffmpeg but both have valid claims. Doesn't change the fact it's a disastrous situation and both projects are not in particularly good states.
- roghummal 11y ago
  >both sides think they are the one-true-ffmpeg but both have valid claims. ffmpeg is the one-true-ffmpeg. If libav surpassed ffmpeg, we'd have libav. The one-true-libav. libav doesn't have a valid claim; It's a fork second to ffmpeg. Somebody put the cart before the horse. Happy to see it fixed.