Neal Gompa writes:
> And we're not the first to offer reduced functionality
> FFmpeg (both Debian and openSUSE do too, so we're in good company
> here).
I don't think that's an accurate characterization of what Debian does.
See
On Mon, Feb 28, 2022 at 7:39 AM Vitaly Zaitsev via devel
wrote:
>
> On 28/02/2022 13:35, Neal Gompa wrote:
> > Fortunately, that's where we can bring value to the ecosystem, as
> > we're supposed to be capable enough to work with upstreams to fix
> > broken code
>
> Feel free to start with
On 28/02/2022 13:35, Neal Gompa wrote:
Fortunately, that's where we can bring value to the ecosystem, as
we're supposed to be capable enough to work with upstreams to fix
broken code
Feel free to start with Telegram Desktop[1]. :-)
[1]: https://github.com/telegramdesktop/tdesktop
--
On Mon, Feb 28, 2022 at 7:11 AM Vitaly Zaitsev via devel
wrote:
>
> On 28/02/2022 03:45, Ian McInerney via devel wrote:
> > How are these removed codecs handled in the library?
>
> ffmpeg is a monolithic library.
>
ffmpeg is a set of libraries. The libavcodec library is a monolithic
library of
On 28/02/2022 03:45, Ian McInerney via devel wrote:
How are these removed codecs handled in the library?
ffmpeg is a monolithic library.
Can we link an upstream application against FFMPEG in Fedora now and have it
gracefully fail when it tries to access a non-free codec that was removed, or
Dne 28. 02. 22 v 7:06 Andreas Schneider napsal(a):
On Monday, February 28, 2022 3:45:55 AM CET Ian McInerney via devel wrote:
I noticed in the electron thread that we now have FFMPEG 5.0 in the
official Fedora repos, but this will of course mean that certain codecs are
removed due to legal
On Monday, February 28, 2022 3:45:55 AM CET Ian McInerney via devel wrote:
> I noticed in the electron thread that we now have FFMPEG 5.0 in the
> official Fedora repos, but this will of course mean that certain codecs are
> removed due to legal concerns. This prompts a few questions though:
>
>
On Sun, Feb 27, 2022 at 10:05 PM Gary Buhrmaster
wrote:
>
> On Mon, Feb 28, 2022 at 3:00 AM Neal Gompa wrote:
>
> > We do also have OpenH264 support enabled via dlopening the library, so
> > if the openh264 package is present on the system, it'll "just work"
> > and provide H.264 support. If it
On Mon, Feb 28, 2022 at 3:00 AM Neal Gompa wrote:
> We do also have OpenH264 support enabled via dlopening the library, so
> if the openh264 package is present on the system, it'll "just work"
> and provide H.264 support. If it is not installed, it'll return the
> correct error for applications
On Mon, Feb 28, 2022 at 2:46 AM Ian McInerney via devel
wrote:
> 1) How are these removed codecs handled in the library? Can we link an
> upstream application against FFMPEG in Fedora now and have it gracefully fail
> when it tries to access a non-free codec that was removed, or does the
>
On Sun, Feb 27, 2022 at 9:46 PM Ian McInerney via devel
wrote:
>
> I noticed in the electron thread that we now have FFMPEG 5.0 in the official
> Fedora repos, but this will of course mean that certain codecs are removed
> due to legal concerns. This prompts a few questions though:
>
> 1) How
I noticed in the electron thread that we now have FFMPEG 5.0 in the
official Fedora repos, but this will of course mean that certain codecs are
removed due to legal concerns. This prompts a few questions though:
1) How are these removed codecs handled in the library? Can we link an
upstream
12 matches
Mail list logo
