2018-05-16 9:39 GMT+02:00, Moritz Barsnick :
> On Tue, May 15, 2018 at 17:25:56 -0500, Bryan Duff wrote:
>> OK, and the reason I'm using 2.8 is because that's as high as the el7
>> rpmfusion repo goes to.
>
> Okay, if it was the libraries you needed, because you had an old
>
On Tue, May 15, 2018 at 17:25:56 -0500, Bryan Duff wrote:
> OK, and the reason I'm using 2.8 is because that's as high as the el7
> rpmfusion repo goes to.
Okay, if it was the libraries you needed, because you had an old
program which has never been adapted to ffmpeg's new APIs/ABIs, that
would
2018-05-16 0:25 GMT+02:00, Bryan Duff :
> On Tue, May 15, 2018 at 4:46 PM, Carl Eugen Hoyos wrote:
[...]
>> Could you elaborate what you want to know exactly?
>> The issue in question was introduced after 2.8 was released but
>> I wonder why you chose this example: This is a
On Tue, May 15, 2018 at 4:46 PM, Carl Eugen Hoyos
wrote:
> 2018-05-15 22:02 GMT+02:00, Bryan Duff :
> > Is 2.8.14 up-to-date as far as known security issues (e.g
> > CVE's) are concerned?
>
> 2.8 is still supported and gets security updates:
>
2018-05-15 22:02 GMT+02:00, Bryan Duff :
> Is 2.8.14 up-to-date as far as known security issues (e.g
> CVE's) are concerned?
2.8 is still supported and gets security updates:
http://ffmpeg.org/download.html
Note that nearly no fixed FFmpeg security issue gets a CVE,
so CVE's
On 5/15/18, Bryan Duff wrote:
> Is 2.8.14 up-to-date as far as known security issues (e.g CVE's) are
> concerned?
>
> Looking at CVE's for ffmpeg, some will say "3.x.y and before" - does that
> mean that they only affect 3.x? If not and they affect 2.8.14, then there
> are a
Am 15.05.2018 um 22:02 schrieb Bryan Duff:
> Is 2.8.14 up-to-date as far as known security issues (e.g CVE's) are
> concerned?
>
> Looking at CVE's for ffmpeg, some will say "3.x.y and before" - does that
> mean that they only affect 3.x? If not and they affect 2.8.14, then there
> are a