[ANNOUNCEMENT] ghostscript 10.0.0-1 (TEST)

[Ken Brown via Cygwin-announce via Cygwin]

The following packages have been uploaded to the Cygwin distribution as test 
releases:


* ghostscript-10.0.0-1
* libgs9-10.0.0-1
* libgs-devel-10.0.0-1

GNU Ghostscript is a PostScript interpreter capable of converting PS files into 
a number of printer output formats.  Ghostscript can also render PS files into a 
number of graphics file formats.


This is an update to the latest upstream release.  See

  https://ghostscript.readthedocs.io/en/latest/News.html

for a summary of the changes since the previous release.  The big change in this 
release is that the old PDF interpreter (written in PostScript) is now fully 
deprecated in favor of an implementation written in C.


This is a test release because of reported problems with TeX Live.  I will 
probably leave it as a test release until it's time to release TeX Live 2023.


Ken

--
Problem reports:  https://cygwin.com/problems.html
FAQ:  https://cygwin.com/faq/
Documentation:https://cygwin.com/docs.html
Unsubscribe info: https://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple

ghostscript 10.0.0-1 (TEST)

[Ken Brown via Cygwin-announce]

The following packages have been uploaded to the Cygwin distribution as test 
releases:


* ghostscript-10.0.0-1
* libgs9-10.0.0-1
* libgs-devel-10.0.0-1

GNU Ghostscript is a PostScript interpreter capable of converting PS files into 
a number of printer output formats.  Ghostscript can also render PS files into a 
number of graphics file formats.


This is an update to the latest upstream release.  See

  https://ghostscript.readthedocs.io/en/latest/News.html

for a summary of the changes since the previous release.  The big change in this 
release is that the old PDF interpreter (written in PostScript) is now fully 
deprecated in favor of an implementation written in C.


This is a test release because of reported problems with TeX Live.  I will 
probably leave it as a test release until it's time to release TeX Live 2023.


Ken

Re: [ITP] ffmpeg (5.1.2)

[Jon Turney via Cygwin-apps]

On 24/01/2023 03:28, Takashi Yano via Cygwin-apps wrote:

Thanks!

For a long time, ffmpeg was not included in Fedora, due to concerns
about codec patents, but those issues seem to have been resolved.

Can you please investigate what configuration is used in Fedora, and
what the effects of matching that would be?


Thanks. I will check the configuration of fedora.


I have checked the configuration of ffmpeg in fedora.
It seems that most of codecs are disabled in fedora
by default unless 'all_codecs' flag is specified.
https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/ffmpeg/blob/f37/f/ffmpeg.spec

I have built a ffmpeg package using the configuration
almost imitated fedora.
https://tyan0.yr32.net/cygwin/x86_64/release/ffmpeg-free/

You would find this ffmpeg of the above configuration is
almost unuseful...
aac, h264, hevc, mpeg4, wma, wmv, etc. are not supported.

I also imitated the configuration with 'all_codecs' flag
and have built another ffmpeg package.
https://tyan0.yr32.net/cygwin/x86_64/release/ffmpeg-all_codecs/

This is almost common with the major ports of ffmpeg.

Could you please review them?


Thanks for looking into this.  The packaging looks fine from a technical 
standpoint.


The concern here is that we have an informal policy to only accept 
packages which is would be allowed in Fedora (by it's policies on 
content and being free of legal encumbrances (e.g. license, patent and 
trademark issues))


After some discussions, it seems that policy should be formal.  I've 
amended [1] to state that.



I'm sorry to cause you more trouble, but given that, can you package 
this based on the codec set in Fedora's ffmpeg-free?



If you don't think the package is useful under those constraints, don't 
let this discourage you from offering either the cygport for interested 
people to build it themselves, or the packages via an overlay package 
server [2]


[1] https://cygwin.com/packaging-contributors-guide.html#submitting
[2] https://cygwin.com/package-server.html#overlay

(Note for the peanut gallery: none of this should be construed as 
reflecting my personal opinions on the virtues and validity of software 
patents generally, or in this specific case.  This is not the place for 
discussion of such issues)