Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > linux.debian.bugs.dist > #1110968 > unrolled thread

Bug#994151: youtube-dl seems to be alive again

Back to article view | Back to linux.debian.bugs.dist

This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.

Contents

  Bug#994151: youtube-dl seems to be alive again Andres Salomon <dilinger@queued.net> - 2022-07-26 06:40 +0200
    Bug#994151: youtube-dl seems to be alive again Andreas Tille <andreas@an3as.eu> - 2022-07-26 07:20 +0200
    Bug#994151: youtube-dl seems to be alive again Christoph Anton Mitterer <calestyo@scientia.org> - 2022-07-27 04:00 +0200

#1110968 — Bug#994151: youtube-dl seems to be alive again

On Tue, 26 Jul 2022 02:44:37 +0200 Christoph Anton Mitterer 
<calestyo@scientia.org> wrote:
 > On Tue, 2022-07-26 at 02:36 +0200, Diederik de Haas wrote:
 > > It looks like things have changed and 'dirkf' has become the new
 > > maintainer:
 >
 > My understanding was the was mostly "maintaining" it for stuff that
 > doesn't support new python versions.
 >
 > Commit-wise it doesn't seem near as active as yt-dlp.
 >

Yeah, I was just noticing that. I'll wait a few more months to see if 
youtube-dl does an actual release, but long-term it might make sense to 
turn youtube-dl into an empty package that depends on yt-dlp.

Since they have different command-line arguments and people might be 
using youtube-dl in scripts, I do wonder if youtube-dl should remain in 
bookworm with a NEWS.Debian warning users to switch to yt-dlp, and have 
it become a dummy package in bookworm+1?

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#1110971

Am Tue, Jul 26, 2022 at 12:29:50AM -0400 schrieb Andres Salomon:
> Yeah, I was just noticing that. I'll wait a few more months to see if
> youtube-dl does an actual release, but long-term it might make sense to turn
> youtube-dl into an empty package that depends on yt-dlp.
> 
> Since they have different command-line arguments and people might be using
> youtube-dl in scripts, I do wonder if youtube-dl should remain in bookworm
> with a NEWS.Debian warning users to switch to yt-dlp, and have it become a
> dummy package in bookworm+1?

Whatever you people who are *way, way* better informed about youtube-dl than
I am / will be decide:  I would be really happyif you would consider team
maintaining youtube-dl and yt-dl since I'm really not the best person to
maintain this package.  I'm fine with sponsoring any of your work if you do
not have upload permissions.

Kind regards

      Andreas. 

-- 
http://fam-tille.de

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1111060

On Tue, 2022-07-26 at 00:29 -0400, Andres Salomon wrote:
> Yeah, I was just noticing that. I'll wait a few more months to see if
> youtube-dl does an actual release, but long-term it might make sense
> to 
> turn youtube-dl into an empty package that depends on yt-dlp.

This could make sense even if the former would make a new release.

I mean in Debian we have current Python versions, and as long as yt-dlp
is feature-wise far more active than youtube-dl, that should be enough
for Debian users.


> Since they have different command-line arguments and people might be 
> using youtube-dl in scripts, I do wonder if youtube-dl should remain
> in 
> bookworm with a NEWS.Debian warning users to switch to yt-dlp, and
> have 
> it become a dummy package in bookworm+1?

Or just add a release notes entry that youtube-dl has been replaced by
the other, with noting the similar CLI and refering to the yt-dlp
manpage for the exact differences.



On Tue, 2022-07-26 at 07:08 +0200, Andreas Tille wrote:
> I would be really happyif you would consider team
> maintaining youtube-dl and yt-dl since I'm really not the best person
> to
> maintain this package.  I'm fine with sponsoring any of your work if
> you do
> not have upload permissions.

At least for yt-dlp, Unit 193 already does quite some awesome job of
Debian maintenance... so I guess there's not much needed for that right
now?


Thanks,
Chris.

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | linux.debian.bugs.dist

csiph-web