Wasn't libav 11.9 released last month? On Mon, May 1, 2017 at 9:43 AM, Ben Roberts <opti...@sabayonlinux.org> wrote:
> Let's bear in mind the problem is not just that there are packages that > don't have direct support for libav. The problem is also partly that there > is not a libav release that provides all the same component library > versions that are available in ffmpeg; libav is definitively behind ffmpeg > at the present time. > > To stick with libav and be able to offer the same packages as if we had > ffmpeg, multiple things are needed: > - libav to cut a new release that is comparable to recent ffmpegs > (>=3.0.x). The last version of libav was cut in Feb 2016 so is well over 12 > months lagged behind ffmpeg. > - Every single package which currently depends on ffmpeg to be patched to > support libav, new ebuilds written and submitted to the portage tree. > > To me that sounds like an awful lot of work, needing to be coordinated > with multiple upstreams. Are there any other distros that offer libav only, > with no ffmpeg alternative? > > On Mon, May 1, 2017 at 3:36 PM, Jerrod Frost <piroisl...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> Can we get a list of every application in portage that DOES NOT support >> libav and requires ffmpeg? >> I would volunteer to attempt filing bugs for each application requesting >> libav support. >> >> On Mon, May 1, 2017 at 9:31 AM KJS <wolf...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> I have to agree with Ettore >>> >>> On Mon, May 1, 2017 at 6:02 AM, Sławomir Nizio < >>> slawomir.ni...@sabayon.org> wrote: >>> >>>> > We are one of the few distributions (actually i'm not aware of others) >>>> > that support libav out of the box, and i'm proud of it. What i would >>>> > propose instead is trying to push upstream projects that misses libav >>>> > support and/or helping libav providing support to them. >>>> >>>> Volunteers? :) >>>> >>>> One of the apps I have installed is cmus, and it's an older version >>>> because the newer one doesn't support libav, so I'll use it as an >>>> example. >>>> >>>> Some upstreams don't seem to be willing to take the additional effort of >>>> supporting both libraries, e.g.: >>>> https://github.com/cmus/cmus/issues/139. If by upstream you mean >>>> Gentoo, >>>> it is also being the case, it seems. Maybe the people you mentioned >>>> could help, but then let's not forget patching an application is not a >>>> one time thing, but support has to be ensured for future versions of the >>>> application and the libs. >>>> >>>> > That being said, if majority of the staff agree and wants the >>>> > transition, i would be ok with it, despite not liking it :o) >>>> >>>> I don't have a strong opinion here, but missing apps support is a >>>> problem a distribution should approach somehow. An alternative way would >>>> be to have these libraries installed in parallel with patching >>>> applications to find these, but again it's an effort I'd rather be >>>> avoided. Still, that would probably be much easier than the former >>>> approach. >>>> >>>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> KJS >>> ~wolfden~ >>> >> >> >> >> > > > > -- KJS ~wolfden~
