On 08/31/2016 07:11 PM, Sérgio Basto wrote: > Orion Poplawski, I'd like have an agreement on how put ffmpeg in epel7. > What you say ? may we have one ffmpeg ? , should we have multi ffmpegs > ? etc.
So would I. But I seem to have offended Nicolas enough that discussion has stopped. I think that the ffmpegX.Y packages allow for a better transition in the future when 2.8 becomes unsupported, as well as allowing packages that need 3.1 to use it now. But it is definitely more complex and there may be other gotchas. However, I do feel that this is the way more and more packages are going, especially in EPEL. For example, with zabbix, we have zabbix20 and zabbix22, but no "zabbix". If the consensus is to ship 2.8 as ffmpeg now, and then presumably switch to 3.X later and ship ffmpeg-compat-2.8 later, that seems workable as well. Traditionally compat packages have only shipped runtime libs, but you could ship the full thing as well if needed. -- Orion Poplawski Technical Manager 303-415-9701 x222 NWRA, Boulder/CoRA Office FAX: 303-415-9702 3380 Mitchell Lane or...@nwra.com Boulder, CO 80301 http://www.nwra.com
