On Wed, Feb 20, 2019 at 11:36 PM Carl Eugen Hoyos wrote:
>
> 2019-02-20 20:56 GMT+01:00, Lou Logan :
> > On Wed, Feb 6, 2019, at 11:48 AM, Werner Robitza wrote:
> >>
> >> I propose that FFmpeg maintains its own ffmpeg formula under its
> >> GitHub organization at github.com/ffmpeg/homebrew-ffmpeg
2019-02-20 20:56 GMT+01:00, Lou Logan :
> On Wed, Feb 6, 2019, at 11:48 AM, Werner Robitza wrote:
>>
>> I propose that FFmpeg maintains its own ffmpeg formula under its
>> GitHub organization at github.com/ffmpeg/homebrew-ffmpeg (or similar).
>> This will ensure that there's one formula users will
On Wed, Feb 6, 2019, at 11:48 AM, Werner Robitza wrote:
>
> I propose that FFmpeg maintains its own ffmpeg formula under its
> GitHub organization at github.com/ffmpeg/homebrew-ffmpeg (or similar).
> This will ensure that there's one formula users will discover when
> they look for an alternative
On Sun, Feb 10, 2019 at 7:40 PM Jean-Baptiste Kempf wrote:
>
> On Sun, 10 Feb 2019, at 19:37, Werner Robitza wrote:
> > > 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
On Sun, 10 Feb 2019, at 19:37, Werner Robitza wrote:
> > 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,
On Sat, Feb 9, 2019 at 11:59 PM Jean-Baptiste Kempf 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
On Sat, 9 Feb 2019, at 11:59, Werner Robitza wrote:
> You could print an even more obvious warning message when these
> options are used.
> If that is a big concern, it can be easily dealt with.
>
> > And yes, I strongly advise against the project advertising those non-free
> > options.
>
>
On Fri, Feb 8, 2019 at 10:18 PM Jean-Baptiste Kempf wrote:
>
> On Fri, 8 Feb 2019, at 22:08, Lou Logan wrote:
> > On Fri, Feb 8, 2019, at 11:27 AM, Jean-Baptiste Kempf wrote:
> > >
> > > Also, the AUR recipe does not push for non-free packages.
> >
> > The proposed homebrew formulae will not push
On Fri, Feb 08, 2019 at 10:03:36AM +0100, Jean-Baptiste Kempf wrote:
> Hello,
>
> On Wed, 6 Feb 2019, at 21:41, Werner Robitza wrote:
> > Homebrew has, with its 2.0 release, removed all options for its core
> > formulae [1], including ffmpeg. This means users can no longer add
> > non-default
On Fri, 8 Feb 2019, at 22:08, Lou Logan wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 8, 2019, at 11:27 AM, Jean-Baptiste Kempf wrote:
> >
> > Also, the AUR recipe does not push for non-free packages.
>
> The proposed homebrew formulae will not push for non-free packages. It
> will simply provide the options for the
On Fri, Feb 8, 2019, at 11:27 AM, Jean-Baptiste Kempf wrote:
>
> Also, the AUR recipe does not push for non-free packages.
The proposed homebrew formulae will not push for non-free packages. It will
simply provide the options for the user to enable two non-free components
(openssh and fdk-aac
On Fri, 8 Feb 2019, at 21:18, Lou Logan wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 8, 2019, at 12:03 AM, Jean-Baptiste Kempf wrote:
> >
> > Helping people to build non-free distributions of FFmpeg is a very weird
> > and dubious goal.
> > This is just helping other people violate the FFmpeg license.
>
> You could
On Fri, 8 Feb 2019, at 19:06, Werner Robitza wrote:
> Hello,
>
> Thanks for your comments.
>
> On Fri, Feb 8, 2019 at 10:03 AM Jean-Baptiste Kempf wrote:
> > Why do something special for homebrew, and not for all the other
> > distributions?
> > Why is homebrew different? Are you going to
On Fri, Feb 8, 2019, at 12:03 AM, Jean-Baptiste Kempf wrote:
>
> Helping people to build non-free distributions of FFmpeg is a very weird
> and dubious goal.
> This is just helping other people violate the FFmpeg license.
You could say the same thing for other build scripts such as the AUR for
Hello,
Thanks for your comments.
On Fri, Feb 8, 2019 at 10:03 AM Jean-Baptiste Kempf wrote:
> Why do something special for homebrew, and not for all the other
> distributions?
> Why is homebrew different? Are you going to merge all .spec files from all
> Linux distributions too?
I don't
Hello,
On Wed, 6 Feb 2019, at 21:41, Werner Robitza wrote:
> Homebrew has, with its 2.0 release, removed all options for its core
> formulae [1], including ffmpeg. This means users can no longer add
> non-default dependencies that aren't included in the core formula [2].
> I propose that FFmpeg
On Thu, Feb 7, 2019 at 11:11 PM Lou Logan wrote:
>
> On Thu, Feb 7, 2019, at 12:49 PM, Carl Eugen Hoyos wrote:
> >
> > This sounds like a strong reason not to add it to an FFmpeg
> > repository: It was claimed in the past that I am the only one
> > not supporting releases but the same was now
On Thu, Feb 7, 2019, at 12:49 PM, Carl Eugen Hoyos wrote:
>
> This sounds like a strong reason not to add it to an FFmpeg
> repository: It was claimed in the past that I am the only one
> not supporting releases but the same was now repeated by
> other developers.
We can simply provide a note
2019-02-07 21:32 GMT+01:00, Werner Robitza :
> On Thu, Feb 7, 2019 at 8:50 PM Carl Eugen Hoyos wrote:
>> Please send an initial version of the formula
>
> Sure! Attached to this email.
>
>> please understand
>> that since we do not offer release support, release builds can't
>> be the default.
>
On Thu, Feb 7, 2019 at 9:29 PM Michael Niedermayer
wrote:
> I can setup a repo on github and or on git.ffmpeg.org (where ffmpeg-web is)
> https://github.com/FFmpeg/web currently is a mirror of git.ffmpeg.org
> assuming there is consensus that such a thing should be created
GitHub would be
On Thu, Feb 7, 2019 at 8:50 PM Carl Eugen Hoyos wrote:
> Please send an initial version of the formula
Sure! Attached to this email.
> please understand
> that since we do not offer release support, release builds can't
> be the default.
Homebrew always points to release versions, the latest
On Thu, Feb 07, 2019 at 05:28:10PM +, Derek Buitenhuis wrote:
> On 07/02/2019 16:43, Werner Robitza wrote:
> > Several people have already volunteered in this thread (Reto, Kyle and
> > me), as well as the author of this formula (with whom I've had offline
> > discussions), which we can use as
2019-02-06 21:41 GMT+01:00, Werner Robitza :
> Please let me know your thoughts.
Since this may happen:
Please send an initial version of the formula, please understand
that since we do not offer release support, release builds can't
be the default.
Carl Eugen
On Thu, Feb 7, 2019, at 8:28 AM, Derek Buitenhuis wrote:
>
> I haven't seen anyone object to hosting it as a separate repo on our infra,
> but I also didn't see anyone who maintains our infra reply... maybe Michael
> has opinions.
I'm not against it. Seems like it will be helpful to users and I'm
Carl Eugen Hoyos wrote:
>The question is what happens if one of the dependencies
>in FFmpeg's formula does not work or disappears.
Then the formula will be updated accordingly, as this has
been done during all the last years.
Best regards, Reto
___
2019-02-07 19:24 GMT+01:00, Reto Kromer :
> Gerion Entrup wrote:
>
>>do the dependencies of the options need to be maintained
>>in the repo as well?
>
> I guess, this is out of the scope of FFmpeg.
The question is what happens if one of the dependencies
in FFmpeg's formula does not work or
Gerion Entrup wrote:
>do the dependencies of the options need to be maintained in the
>repo as well?
I guess, this is out of the scope of FFmpeg.
Best regards, Reto
___
ffmpeg-devel mailing list
ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org
Am Mittwoch, 6. Februar 2019, 21:41:29 CET schrieb Werner Robitza:
> Dear all,
>
> Homebrew has, with its 2.0 release, removed all options for its core
> formulae [1], including ffmpeg. This means users can no longer add
> non-default dependencies that aren't included in the core formula [2].
>
On 07/02/2019 16:43, Werner Robitza wrote:
> Several people have already volunteered in this thread (Reto, Kyle and
> me), as well as the author of this formula (with whom I've had offline
> discussions), which we can use as a starting point:
>
On Thu, Feb 7, 2019 at 5:21 PM Derek Buitenhuis
wrote:
> I guess my question is: Who amongst the devs here wants to write it?
Several people have already volunteered in this thread (Reto, Kyle and
me), as well as the author of this formula (with whom I've had offline
discussions), which we can
On 07/02/2019 08:06, Werner Robitza wrote:
>> I don't think that's the suggestion. Separate Github repo belonging to
>> the FFmpeg Github organization.
>
> Correct. No modification in the source tree.
I guess my question is: Who amongst the devs here wants to write it?
(Not me.)
- Derek
On Thu, Feb 7, 2019 at 9:18 AM Reto Kromer wrote:
> I guess the discussion is "only" on: should this happen inside
> or outside the official FFmpeg. My personal preference would be
> inside.
Yes, that was the main point – I see others have this preference as
well. And several people have already
>>On Wed, Feb 6, 2019 at 9:51 PM Carl Eugen Hoyos
>>wrote:
>>>We already provide a build script and we believe that it works very
>>>well, in addition a kind supporter offers osx binaries.
>>
>>That's all true, but not all users want to build manually (or have the
>>technical skills to
Werner Robitza wrote:
>On Wed, Feb 6, 2019 at 9:51 PM Carl Eugen Hoyos
> wrote:
>>We already provide a build script and we believe that it works
>>very well, in addition a kind supporter offers osx binaries.
>
>That's all true, but not all users want to build manually (or
>have the technical
On Wed, Feb 6, 2019 at 10:51 PM Kyle Swanson wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 6, 2019 at 1:43 PM Helmut K. C. Tessarek
> wrote:
> > Anyhow, I don't think that adding a formula to the ffmpeg src tree is
> > the right approach.
>
> I don't think that's the suggestion. Separate Github repo belonging to
> the
On Wed, Feb 6, 2019 at 9:51 PM Carl Eugen Hoyos wrote:
> Why don't you put your "formula" into your own github repository?
I could do that, but as I've mentioned, providing an official formula
(within a separate repository, not in the source tree!) would make it
easier for end users to discover,
Hi,
On Wed, Feb 6, 2019 at 1:43 PM Helmut K. C. Tessarek
wrote:
> Anyhow, I don't think that adding a formula to the ffmpeg src tree is
> the right approach.
I don't think that's the suggestion. Separate Github repo belonging to
the FFmpeg Github organization.
Thanks,
Kyle
Hi,
On Wed, Feb 6, 2019 at 1:20 PM Reto Kromer wrote:
>
> Werner Robitza wrote:
>
> >I propose that FFmpeg maintains its own ffmpeg formula under
> >its GitHub organization
>
> I second the idea.
+1
>
> (Homebrew works now on any modern x86_64 architecture running
> Linux, macOS and Windows with
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
On 2019-02-06 21:41, Werner Robitza wrote:
> Please let me know your thoughts.
I'd like to know why people always think that brew is the best way to
get ports.
Have you looked into MacPorts? No issues with ffmpeg there.
If something should be
Werner Robitza wrote:
>I propose that FFmpeg maintains its own ffmpeg formula under
>its GitHub organization
I second the idea.
(Homebrew works now on any modern x86_64 architecture running
Linux, macOS and Windows with Linux.)
>I am happy to maintain this formula – and maybe there are other
2019-02-06 21:41 GMT+01:00, Werner Robitza :
> I am happy to maintain this formula
Why don't you put your "formula" into your own github repository?
We already provide a build script and we believe that it works
very well, in addition a kind supporter offers osx binaries.
Carl Eugen
Dear all,
Homebrew has, with its 2.0 release, removed all options for its core
formulae [1], including ffmpeg. This means users can no longer add
non-default dependencies that aren't included in the core formula [2].
That creates a bit of a messy situation, as users are expecting to be
able to
42 matches
Mail list logo
