[FFmpeg-devel] [PATCH] define _BSD_SOURCE for bktr.c

[Jacob Meuser]

On Sun, Dec 14, 2008 at 10:59:34PM +0100, Michael Niedermayer wrote:
> On Sun, Dec 14, 2008 at 08:45:42PM +0000, Jacob Meuser wrote:
> > On Sun, Dec 14, 2008 at 02:31:32PM +0100, Diego Biurrun wrote:
> > 
> > > IMO the ultimate goal should always be to send everything upstream and
> > 
> > of course.
> > 
> > > apply no patches.  It's not an impossible goal and it leads to better
> > > quality software and less work and frustration for everybody involved.
> > > 
> > > And yes, the Debian OpenSSL disaster is a shining example of how things
> > > can go wrong if this aim is disregarded.
> > 
> > iirc, that was largely the result of upstream being rude for silly
> > reasons ...
> 
> secure ... unless upstream is rude in which case, better use upstream which
> oddly is not insecure due to its own rudeness.
> 
> Anyway, IMHO the issue is not rudeness but the problem that distros, and this
> is true for all distros i know and most packeges not just ffmpeg are patched
> far too much, and then end up buggier than where they not patched at all.
> 
> IMHO, if someone takes some program or lib and packages it for the first time
> he should contact upstream and send all patches there _before_ ever applying
> them to the public package. Only when upstream is unresponsive or braindead
> should patches be applied to the package.
> Also IMHO a packege maintainer should never apply a patch that he does not
> personally fully understand or that someone trustworthy & knowledgeable in
> the area has reviewed fully and approved.
> 
> I know the awnser to this would be that the quality standard isnt that high
> in distros. Or in other words distros give a shit about their users systems
> being rooted, crashing or just not working right, hell not even MS is having
> such low quality standards.
> 
> But than distros pretend to their users that they have some kind of quality
> standard. Ive never read something like:
> 
> trashlinux, everything that compiled somehow and that doesnt outright
> segfault. Secure because its too unstable for crackers to be interrested.
> 
> anyway i hope you dont feel insulted due to this rant against distros it
> really is not targeted to you ...
> 
> [...]

no offense taken.  you are correct.  the only patch I was unsure of
was removing ff_check_alignment.  but a) that can fail anyway, and
b) I did ask some OpenBSD developers about this, and was told
the check was probably not necessary.  I'm pretty sure I asked here
about that as well.

I also tried really hard to keep ffmpeg up to date.  before I started
working on it, OpenBSD was shipping 0.4.9-pre1 or whatever it was,
years after that "release" ...

I probably overreacted a bit, but, I don't think it was a totally
bogus reaction.

-- 
jakemsr at sdf.lonestar.org
SDF Public Access UNIX System - http://sdf.lonestar.org