Re-establishing FFmpeg package naming consistency and transition woes

[Reinhard Tartler]

I'm CC'ing bugsquad@ for input on bug triaging on ffmpeg related bugs.

Steve Langasek <steve.langasek at ubuntu.com> writes:

> I don't agree that these are good reasons for renaming the source
> packages.

[Context: the source package name 'ffmpeg-debian' has been renamed back
 to 'ffmpeg'].

> This will disrupt continuity for Launchpad bug tracking, as well as in
> other cases (SRUs, security updates?).  I think the proposed binary
> package renames are reasonable, but I think the source package names
> should remain unchanged.

In effect, this changes is a revert, the source package was named
'ffmpeg' in hardy, our last LTS, which would leave us with 2 releases
(intrepid and jaunty) with that 'funny' discontinuity.

Regarding bug tracking, I've had the experience that the source package
name 'ffmpeg-debian' is not intutive at all, and people just file bugs
against 'ffmpeg'. Not reverting this rename will not stop them to do so,
since the old entry 'ffmpeg' will not go away for earlier releases of
this package. Having the package named back will direct ffmpeg related
bug reports to the right place.  AFAIUI we both agree that
'ffmpeg-extra' is the best name for the source package with the
'-extra-' binary packages, and should not be renamed back to 'ffmpeg'. I
expect not having any source package called 'ffmpeg' in the most recent
release of ubuntu will be confusing.

In some way, yes, I've learned my lesson that source package renames
need to be considered harmful the hard way.

Is there anything I need to do to get the 'ffmpeg' package promoted to
'main' or is this discussion the blocker for its promotion?

-- 
Gruesse/greetings,
Reinhard Tartler, KeyID 945348A4