On Sat, Feb 9, 2019 at 11:59 PM Jean-Baptiste Kempf <j...@videolan.org> wrote: > > On Sat, 9 Feb 2019, at 11:59, Werner Robitza wrote: > > Then the only consequence can be to remove these options or support > > for these libraries altogether, because you'll find plenty of guides > > and recommendations on how to build ffmpeg with non-free libs on the > > Internet – even supplied by members who are very active in the FFmpeg > > community. It is certainly your prerogative to be against explicit > > advertising, but where do you draw the line? Has there been any > > precedent with this, or is this going to be decided on a case-by-case > > basis? > > > > The only consequence would be a formula that is not owned and > > controlled by FFmpeg, and people will continue to build non-free > > binaries. > > But then, it is not the project, doing it, but someone else.
The project won't be building non-free binaries and ship those to people. It's the users who will do it on their machine. > To come back to the main topic, you can have a full FFmpeg in homebrew with > all the libraries activated by default, if you want, without any issue. No, that's not the case. > I therefore do not see at all the need for options. They are needed since not everyone wants or needs a full-featured ffmpeg with all third-party libraries. There can be sane defaults, like there have been for years, and some libraries can be enabled optionally. > Those options are just for non-free cases, and to be honest, I don't see why > FFmpeg should advertise those. That is not correct. The following options/dependencies are not present in Homebrew core: chromaprint, fdk-aac, game-music-emu, libbs2b, libcaca, libgsm, libmodplug, librsvg, libssh, libvidstab, libvmaf, openh264, openssl, srt, two-lame, wavpack, webp, zeromq, zimg _______________________________________________ ffmpeg-devel mailing list ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org http://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-devel
