core-update scope

core-update scope

[Andy Tai]

Hi, shall changes to non-core packages like ffmpeg still be in the
scope of core-updates?

ffmpeg, for example, is no where near the core of the GNU system like
glibc, but still it is widely dependent upon.   But it would make no
sense to have a ffmpeg-team because it is used by packages over wide
areas, KDE, GNOME and others.   It is not well defined in a package
realm like GNOME packages.

The last core-update branch was used to update ffmpeg.  This seems to
still better to be true or to remain the same, no?

Re: core-update scope

[Leo Famulari]

On Sat, Aug 31, 2024 at 02:32:01PM -0700, Andy Tai wrote:
> Hi, shall changes to non-core packages like ffmpeg still be in the
> scope of core-updates?
> 
> ffmpeg, for example, is no where near the core of the GNU system like
> glibc, but still it is widely dependent upon.   But it would make no
> sense to have a ffmpeg-team because it is used by packages over wide
> areas, KDE, GNOME and others.   It is not well defined in a package
> realm like GNOME packages.
> 
> The last core-update branch was used to update ffmpeg.  This seems to
> still better to be true or to remain the same, no?

I don't think there is an obviously correct answer to this.

I have considered that Guix could have a "media team" that led the
effort for packages like FFmpeg and others that are in the middle layer
of the package graph and handle media. GStreamer is another candidate,
and of course all the codecs that FFmpeg and GStreamer depend on.

I think that "media" is generally expected by all users of desktop Guix,
and it's not uncommon to use headless Guix to play media (music players,
TV boxes, etc). So there should be lots of support :)

I'd be willing to help with this team if others were interested, but I
can't do it alone. I don't think it would be as hard as integrated
systems like GNOME or KDE, because the inter-package compatibility
requirements for media packages are usually lax, and so the media
formats are defined by standards and the respective codecs are treated
as black boxes by their users.

Re: core-update scope

[Christopher Baines]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 864 bytes --]

Andy Tai <atai@atai.org> writes:

> Hi, shall changes to non-core packages like ffmpeg still be in the
> scope of core-updates?
>
> ffmpeg, for example, is no where near the core of the GNU system like
> glibc, but still it is widely dependent upon.   But it would make no
> sense to have a ffmpeg-team because it is used by packages over wide
> areas, KDE, GNOME and others.   It is not well defined in a package
> realm like GNOME packages.
>
> The last core-update branch was used to update ffmpeg.  This seems to
> still better to be true or to remain the same, no?

It doesn't seem like a core package to me, but also every branch doesn't
need a team. It's fine to have a ffmpeg or ffmpeg-update branch and just
bump that one package.

There's a balance to be struck in grouping packages together to both
minimise builds but also make changes easier to test.

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 987 bytes --]

Re: core-update scope

[Leo Famulari]

On Wed, Sep 04, 2024 at 10:01:28AM +0100, Christopher Baines wrote:
> It doesn't seem like a core package to me, but also every branch doesn't
> need a team. It's fine to have a ffmpeg or ffmpeg-update branch and just
> bump that one package.
> 
> There's a balance to be struck in grouping packages together to both
> minimise builds but also make changes easier to test.

I agree, we don't have to have a team for this. I'm not sure anyone else
cares about the "media" packages as a whole. But if there is interest,
that's good too.

If I find the time, I would personally batch the codec updates with
FFmpeg and GStreamer updates since they are largely equivalent in the
package graph.

Re: core-update scope

[Andreas Enge]

Hello Leo,

Am Sat, Sep 07, 2024 at 01:47:03PM -0400 schrieb Leo Famulari:
> I agree, we don't have to have a team for this. I'm not sure anyone else
> cares about the "media" packages as a whole. But if there is interest,
> that's good too.

as an outsider, I would just like to chime in that I liked your idea of
creating a "media software" team, Leo. It is definitely an area that is
important for many users and in need of qualified input. Notice that a
"team" need not have more than one member :)

But as I am not qualified in the matter, I will not push for it,
it is of course up to you to create a new team or not.

Cheers,

Andreas

Re: core-update scope

[Maxim Cournoyer]

Hello,

Andreas Enge <andreas@enge.fr> writes:

> Hello Leo,
>
> Am Sat, Sep 07, 2024 at 01:47:03PM -0400 schrieb Leo Famulari:
>> I agree, we don't have to have a team for this. I'm not sure anyone else
>> cares about the "media" packages as a whole. But if there is interest,
>> that's good too.
>
> as an outsider, I would just like to chime in that I liked your idea of
> creating a "media software" team, Leo. It is definitely an area that is
> important for many users and in need of qualified input. Notice that a
> "team" need not have more than one member :)
>
> But as I am not qualified in the matter, I will not push for it,
> it is of course up to you to create a new team or not.

I'd also welcome a media-team, to ease the flow of keepings things like
gstreamer and ffmpeg regularly updated.  Its team and the desktop
(gnome, kde) teams would need to keep in sync to avoid duplicated
efforts though, as updating GNOME often means updating the gstreamer
stack.

-- 
Thanks,
Maxim