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. > > 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 build ffmpeg with non-free libs on the > Internet – even supplied by members who are very active in the FFmpeg > community. It is certainly your prerogative to be against explicit > advertising, but where do you draw the line? Has there been any > precedent with this, or is this going to be decided on a case-by-case > basis? > > The only consequence would be a formula that is not owned and > controlled by FFmpeg, and people will continue to build non-free > binaries.
But then, it is not the project, doing it, but someone else. To come back to the main topic, you can have a full FFmpeg in homebrew with all the libraries activated by default, if you want, without any issue. I therefore do not see at all the need for options. Those options are just for non-free cases, and to be honest, I don't see why FFmpeg should advertise those. -- Jean-Baptiste Kempf - President +33 672 704 734 _______________________________________________ ffmpeg-devel mailing list ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org http://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-devel
