On Thu, Jun 16, 2022 at 9:41 AM Demi Marie Obenour
wrote:
>
> On 6/10/22 07:45, Martin Stransky wrote:
> > On 6/10/22 11:44, Vitaly Zaitsev via devel wrote:
> >> On 10/06/2022 05:08, Gary Buhrmaster wrote:
> >>> I admit I have not checked, but does ffmpeg-free include
> >>> the hardware GPU suppor
On 6/10/22 07:45, Martin Stransky wrote:
> On 6/10/22 11:44, Vitaly Zaitsev via devel wrote:
>> On 10/06/2022 05:08, Gary Buhrmaster wrote:
>>> I admit I have not checked, but does ffmpeg-free include
>>> the hardware GPU support for the various patented
>>> codecs (letting the GPU vendor pay the l
On 6/10/22 11:44, Vitaly Zaitsev via devel wrote:
On 10/06/2022 05:08, Gary Buhrmaster wrote:
I admit I have not checked, but does ffmpeg-free include
the hardware GPU support for the various patented
codecs (letting the GPU vendor pay the license costs
for the decoder) and if not, would RH lega
On 10/06/2022 10:30, Demi Marie Obenour wrote:
Let me guess: software encoding is too slow? I did manage to do pure
software recording from OBS Studio once, but I have no idea what the
video quality was or what codec would have been used.
Yes, very slow. You need a separate computer if you wan
On 10/06/2022 10:35, Demi Marie Obenour wrote:
Could that be fixed upstream, such that the hardware support will be
used where available?
The upstream is not interested in maintaining stripped versions.
--
Sincerely,
Vitaly Zaitsev (vit...@easycoding.org)
On 10/06/2022 05:08, Gary Buhrmaster wrote:
I admit I have not checked, but does ffmpeg-free include
the hardware GPU support for the various patented
codecs (letting the GPU vendor pay the license costs
for the decoder) and if not, would RH legal consider
adding that hardware driver support acce
On 6/9/22 23:35, Neal Gompa wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 9, 2022 at 11:10 PM Gary Buhrmaster
> wrote:
>>
>> On Sun, Jun 5, 2022 at 8:33 PM Vitaly Zaitsev via devel
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> On 05/06/2022 10:02, Mattia Verga via devel wrote:
We should really start thinking about this.
>>>
>>> Yes. Patents fo
On 6/9/22 13:23, Neal Gompa wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 9, 2022 at 11:44 AM Andreas Schneider wrote:
>>
>> On Sunday, June 5, 2022 10:36:19 AM CEST Neal Gompa wrote:
>>> H.264 is supported through OpenH264, and H.265 is not a popular codec.
>>> Aside from Apple services (which are not available to Linux
On Fri, Jun 10, 2022 at 3:37 AM Neal Gompa wrote:
> Unfortunately, this doesn't apply to decoders in the ffmpeg
> architecture. Worse, some decoders that _could_ be enabled are
> basically broken when hardware support is missing. FFmpeg does not
> correctly invalidate them as choices and the play
On Thu, Jun 9, 2022 at 11:10 PM Gary Buhrmaster
wrote:
>
> On Sun, Jun 5, 2022 at 8:33 PM Vitaly Zaitsev via devel
> wrote:
> >
> > On 05/06/2022 10:02, Mattia Verga via devel wrote:
> > > We should really start thinking about this.
> >
> > Yes. Patents for algorithms hinder the development of hu
On Sun, Jun 5, 2022 at 8:33 PM Vitaly Zaitsev via devel
wrote:
>
> On 05/06/2022 10:02, Mattia Verga via devel wrote:
> > We should really start thinking about this.
>
> Yes. Patents for algorithms hinder the development of humankind.
>
> But there is nothing we can do about it, because Red Hat is
On 09/06/2022 20:31, Michel Alexandre Salim wrote:
The linking happens on the user machine, no? For Fedora only akmods are
available, which generate kernel-specific kmod RPMs on the user
machine. Which causes its own issues since that means you can't boot
with Secure Boot anymore...
Akmods can
> On Thu, 2022-06-09 at 03:51 +0200, Kevin Kofler via devel wrote:
>
> The linking happens on the user machine, no? For Fedora only akmods are
> available, which generate kernel-specific kmod RPMs on the user
> machine. Which causes its own issues since that means you can't boot
> with Secure Boot
On Thu, 2022-06-09 at 03:51 +0200, Kevin Kofler via devel wrote:
>
> In addition, that download offer actively promotes proprietary
> software,
> which used to be a no go in Fedora, but now (very sadly) even Fedora
> itself
> has started doing that by shipping pointers to all sorts of
> propriet
On Thu, Jun 9, 2022 at 11:44 AM Andreas Schneider wrote:
>
> On Sunday, June 5, 2022 10:36:19 AM CEST Neal Gompa wrote:
> > H.264 is supported through OpenH264, and H.265 is not a popular codec.
> > Aside from Apple services (which are not available to Linux users
> > anyway), nobody uses H.265 be
On Sunday, June 5, 2022 10:36:19 AM CEST Neal Gompa wrote:
> H.264 is supported through OpenH264, and H.265 is not a popular codec.
> Aside from Apple services (which are not available to Linux users
> anyway), nobody uses H.265 because of the patent situation with HEVC.
Sadly HEVC patent holders
On Sunday, June 5, 2022 10:02:21 AM CEST Mattia Verga via devel wrote:
> **Rant mode on**
> so, the whole purpose of Fedora is to have a fully free software linux
> distribution... but we can't accomplish that in a working way, then we
> came out with all sort of workarounds to get things working (
On Wed, 2022-06-08 at 15:59 +0200, Petr Pisar wrote:
> V Wed, Jun 08, 2022 at 09:31:34AM -0400, Matthew Miller napsal(a):
> > On Tue, Jun 07, 2022 at 09:35:15PM +0200, Vitaly Zaitsev via devel
> > wrote:
> > > On 07/06/2022 17:31, Matthew Miller wrote:
> > > > https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archiv
Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski writes:
> I guess it could be fixed with a clean-room reimplementation of the
> stripped parts of FDK-AAC.
Clean-room reimplementation negates the very applicability of any
pre-existing *copyright* to your work. It does not affect applicability
of pre-existing *p
Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski wrote:
> I guess it could be fixed with a clean-room reimplementation of the
> stripped parts of FDK-AAC.
Unfortunately, the concept of clean-room does not apply to patents, only to
copyright. So it will not help here.
Kevin Kofler
_
Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski wrote:
> Not everyone. New users will not be aware of RPM Fusion, so I see much
> value in having things mostly work out-of-the-box. We just have to agree
> to disagree here.
It depends on where the new users are coming from. And if they really find
Fedora but not R
Vitaly Zaitsev via devel wrote:
> An unfiltered version has recently been approved[1].
>
> [1]: https://pagure.io/fedora-workstation/issue/300
I agree with the RPM Fusion developers that this is an absolutely ridiculous
double standard, especially with statements like "and we retire Fedora
flat
On Wed, Jun 8 2022 at 10:49:51 PM +0200, Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski
wrote:
I guess it could be fixed with a clean-room reimplementation of the
stripped parts of FDK-AAC.
Probably not. Aren't the stripped parts the parts that Fedora Legal
does not want us to have? (They wouldn't be strippe
On Wednesday, 08 June 2022 at 22:41, Michael Catanzaro wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 8 2022 at 09:47:53 PM +0200, Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski
> wrote:
> > The above is mostly correct. It's not about audio quality, but
> > correctness. Specifically, HE-AAC audio is decoded incorrectly.
> > See https://bu
On Wed, Jun 8 2022 at 09:47:53 PM +0200, Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski
wrote:
The above is mostly correct. It's not about audio quality, but
correctness. Specifically, HE-AAC audio is decoded incorrectly.
See https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1501522#c22
for more details.
Looking at
Martin Stransky kirjoitti 6.6.2022 klo 11.48:
You can get exact info by running Firefox with
MOZ_LOG="PlatformDecoderModule:5"
env variable.
Thank you, this is a good thing to know.
However, te problem was resolved by ffmpeg-free update,
so I do not need to delve into the output this produce
Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski kirjoitti 6.6.2022 klo 11.54:
On Saturday, 04 June 2022 at 00:05, Otto Urpelainen wrote:
I have discovered that installing the ffmpeg-free package degrades Firefox
video support. Without any kind of ffmpeg installed, Firefox is able to play
all the videos I want to
On Tuesday, 07 June 2022 at 16:25, Michael Catanzaro wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 7 2022 at 03:11:41 PM +0200, Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski
> wrote:
> > You could say that about any software that we ship that's missing
> > features. FESCo decided it's better to include an incomplete or inferior
> > impl
On Wed, Jun 8, 2022 at 1:43 PM Maxwell G via devel
wrote:
>
> On Wednesday, June 8, 2022 8:59:21 AM CDT Petr Pisar wrote:
> > The problem is that RPM Fusion only targets Fedora.
>
> It also targets RHEL, CentOS Stream, and the various RHEL rebuilds.
>
For all practical purposes, that is effective
On Wednesday, June 8, 2022 8:59:21 AM CDT Petr Pisar wrote:
> The problem is that RPM Fusion only targets Fedora.
It also targets RHEL, CentOS Stream, and the various RHEL rebuilds.
--
Thanks,
Maxwell G (@gotmax23)
Pronouns: He/Him/His
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed mess
On 08/06/2022 15:59, Petr Pisar wrote:
If Fedora linked to RPM
Fusion, then according some (U.S.) jurisdical frameworks Fedora and RPM Fusion
would form a unit and Fedora would become legally responsible for RPM Fusion.
I don't think so. RPM Fusion is a third party repository located and
regis
Jun 8, 2022 8:51:45 AM Matthew Miller :
> The differences outlined there result in different constraints.
I disagree that flathub flatpaks breaking our policies is incidental. The way
it
solves the "problem with Linux app distribution" is (in part) by allowing
developers to package and distribu
On 08/06/2022 15:31, Matthew Miller wrote:
The differences outlined there result in different constraints.
Flathub is a third-party repository which provides software for various
Linux distributions. It doesn't shape what software it carries around what
Fedora does not. It fundamentally exists
On Sun, Jun 05, 2022 at 08:02:21AM +, Mattia Verga via devel wrote:
>
> Il 05/06/22 09:37, Vitaly Zaitsev via devel ha scritto:
> > On 04/06/2022 22:43, Otto Urpelainen wrote:
> >> But the question is, what needs to be done so that ffmpeg-free will not
> >> suffer, either.
> > ffmpeg-free is a
V Wed, Jun 08, 2022 at 09:31:34AM -0400, Matthew Miller napsal(a):
> On Tue, Jun 07, 2022 at 09:35:15PM +0200, Vitaly Zaitsev via devel wrote:
> > On 07/06/2022 17:31, Matthew Miller wrote:
> > >https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/le...@lists.fedoraproject.org/message/HYBZLG2X2G6GJKAE5VAK
On Tue, Jun 07, 2022 at 09:35:15PM +0200, Vitaly Zaitsev via devel wrote:
> On 07/06/2022 17:31, Matthew Miller wrote:
> >https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/le...@lists.fedoraproject.org/message/HYBZLG2X2G6GJKAE5VAK6UHQ4B3GNAJS/
> There is no real answer there.
The differences outlined
On 07/06/2022 17:23, Fabio Valentini wrote:
While the flathub remote is enabled on Fedora installs OOTB, the
applications that are available from it are filtered:
An unfiltered version has recently been approved[1].
[1]: https://pagure.io/fedora-workstation/issue/300
--
Sincerely,
Vitaly Za
On 07/06/2022 17:31, Matthew Miller wrote:
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/le...@lists.fedoraproject.org/message/HYBZLG2X2G6GJKAE5VAK6UHQ4B3GNAJS/
There is no real answer there.
--
Sincerely,
Vitaly Zaitsev (vit...@easycoding.org)
___
Once upon a time, Fabio Valentini said:
> Most notably, I don't see any apps based on Electron (or the FFMpeg
> runtime extensions) in that list.
Teams is Electron and includes ffmpeg.
--
Chris Adams
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject
OK, thanks Matthew!
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct:
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: http
On Tue, Jun 07, 2022 at 09:24:59AM -0500, Michael Catanzaro wrote:
> For avoidance of doubt, Fedora Legal has decided we may use flathub
> but not rpmfusion. As I explained to you previously, they have also
> decided not to share their reasoning for this.
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/l
On Tue, Jun 7, 2022 at 10:26 AM Vitaly Zaitsev via devel
wrote:
>
> On 07/06/2022 02:12, Michael Catanzaro wrote:
> > Kevin, I care about users who do not know about rpmfusion, or have
> > enough technical experience to enable it. Everything you've said only
> > makes sense if users are smart enou
On Tue, Jun 7, 2022, 12:04 AM Kevin Kofler via devel <
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org> wrote:
> Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski wrote:
> > Could it be https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2089986 ?
> >
> > There's an update fixing it, so please test:
> > https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/update
On 07/06/2022 16:32, Leigh Scott wrote:
I'm tempted to remove the rpmfusion nvidia & steam repos
(fedora-workstation-repositories package) till there is a full explanation.
This will harm users. Please don't.
--
Sincerely,
Vitaly Zaitsev (vit...@easycoding.org)
_
> On Tue, Jun 7 2022 at 10:24:46 AM +0200, Vitaly Zaitsev via devel
>
> For avoidance of doubt, Fedora Legal has decided we may use flathub but
> not rpmfusion. As I explained to you previously, they have also decided
> not to share their reasoning for this.
>
> Michael
> On Tue, Jun 7 2022 a
On Tue, Jun 7 2022 at 03:11:41 PM +0200, Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski
wrote:
You could say that about any software that we ship that's missing
features. FESCo decided it's better to include an incomplete or
inferior
implementation that we can legally distribute than no implementation
at
all.
On Tue, Jun 7 2022 at 10:24:46 AM +0200, Vitaly Zaitsev via devel
wrote:
I will say it again: let's preload the RPM Fusion repository.
It's no longer a legal case, because preloading of Flathub was
explicitly permitted, and it contains almost the same packages:
patent-encumbered and proprieta
On Monday, 06 June 2022 at 23:58, Kevin Kofler via devel wrote:
> Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski wrote:
>
> > On Sunday, 05 June 2022 at 19:15, Kevin Kofler via devel wrote:
> >> It is common knowledge that Fedora is/was effectively useless for
> >> anything remotely related to multimedia without
On 07/06/2022 02:12, Michael Catanzaro wrote:
Kevin, I care about users who do not know about rpmfusion, or have
enough technical experience to enable it. Everything you've said only
makes sense if users are smart enough to figure out how to install and
use rpmfusion.
I will say it again: let
On Mon, Jun 6 2022 at 11:58:45 PM +0200, Kevin Kofler via devel
wrote:
for no practical benefit whatsoever because
everyone can just install the codecs from RPM Fusion.
Kevin, I care about users who do not know about rpmfusion, or have
enough technical experience to enable it. Everything you'
Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski wrote:
> Could it be https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2089986 ?
>
> There's an update fixing it, so please test:
> https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2022-e3c5f45422
That bug is a direct result of the downstream-only hack to dlopen
libopenh26
Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski wrote:
> On Sunday, 05 June 2022 at 19:15, Kevin Kofler via devel wrote:
>> It is common knowledge that Fedora is/was effectively useless for
>> anything remotely related to multimedia without RPM Fusion packages.
>
> That's entirely false. There are many multimedia
On Mon, Jun 6, 2022 at 4:40 PM Leigh Scott wrote:
>
>
> > That is also blatantly false. The idea was posted by Andreas on
> > rpmfusion-developers list in November 2021 and I (one of the FFmpeg
> > maintainers) was the only one who responded. The other maintainers made
> > no comments in that thre
> That is also blatantly false. The idea was posted by Andreas on
> rpmfusion-developers list in November 2021 and I (one of the FFmpeg
> maintainers) was the only one who responded. The other maintainers made
> no comments in that thread.
>
> In other words, Kevin, please stop spreading lies.
>
On Saturday, 04 June 2022 at 00:05, Otto Urpelainen wrote:
> I have discovered that installing the ffmpeg-free package degrades Firefox
> video support. Without any kind of ffmpeg installed, Firefox is able to play
> all the videos I want to watch. Installing RPM Fusion's ffmpeg package does
> not
On Sunday, 05 June 2022 at 19:15, Kevin Kofler via devel wrote:
> Michael Catanzaro wrote:
> > P.S. Vitaly, your suggestions to enable rpmfusion are not helpful for
> > inexperienced Fedora users, who expect multimedia to work
> > out-of-the-box. Common multimedia needs like "play a video" absolute
On 6/5/22 15:08, Michael Catanzaro wrote:
On Sat, Jun 4 2022 at 01:05:58 AM +0300, Otto Urpelainen
wrote:
It seems clear that there is a bug somewhere, but I cannot decide,
where, hence this post to devel. Should Fedora's Firefox actually have
media.ffmpeg.enabled set to false by default, becau
On Sunday, 05 June 2022 at 10:36, Neal Gompa wrote:
> On Sun, Jun 5, 2022 at 9:37 AM Vitaly Zaitsev via devel
> wrote:
> >
> > On 04/06/2022 22:43, Otto Urpelainen wrote:
> > > But the question is, what needs to be done so that ffmpeg-free will not
> > > suffer, either.
> >
> > ffmpeg-free is a sp
On 05/06/2022 15:08, Michael Catanzaro wrote:
Vitaly, your suggestions to enable rpmfusion are not helpful for
inexperienced Fedora users, who expect multimedia to work out-of-the-box.
1. This is already documented in the Fedora documentation[1].
2. I asked to preload the RPM Fusion repository
On 05/06/2022 10:02, Mattia Verga via devel wrote:
We should really start thinking about this.
Yes. Patents for algorithms hinder the development of humankind.
But there is nothing we can do about it, because Red Hat is registered
in the US organization and must follow their laws.
--
Sincer
On 05/06/2022 10:36, Neal Gompa wrote:
H.264 is supported through OpenH264, and H.265 is not a popular codec.
Aside from Apple services (which are not available to Linux users
anyway), nobody uses H.265 because of the patent situation with HEVC.
It is used by most 4K video files from various to
Michael Catanzaro kirjoitti 5.6.2022 klo 16.08:
On Sat, Jun 4 2022 at 01:05:58 AM +0300, Otto Urpelainen
wrote:
It seems clear that there is a bug somewhere, but I cannot decide,
where, hence this post to devel. Should Fedora's Firefox actually have
media.ffmpeg.enabled set to false by default,
Gary Buhrmaster wrote:
> In the US, ATSC 3.0 TV Broadcasts (a nascent but
> growing tech) typically (there are options) uses H.265
> video encoding and AC-4 for audio
Patches to add decoding-only support for that audio format to FFmpeg have
existed for 2 years now, but unfortunately still not mer
Michael Catanzaro wrote:
> P.S. Vitaly, your suggestions to enable rpmfusion are not helpful for
> inexperienced Fedora users, who expect multimedia to work
> out-of-the-box. Common multimedia needs like "play a video" absolutely
> need to work without rpmfusion, and we need Fedora developers testi
On Sun, Jun 5, 2022 at 8:37 AM Neal Gompa wrote:
> H.264 is supported through OpenH264, and H.265 is not a popular codec.
> Aside from Apple services (which are not available to Linux users
> anyway), nobody uses H.265 because of the patent situation with HEVC.
In the US, ATSC 3.0 TV Broadcasts
On Sat, Jun 4 2022 at 01:05:58 AM +0300, Otto Urpelainen
wrote:
It seems clear that there is a bug somewhere, but I cannot decide,
where, hence this post to devel. Should Fedora's Firefox actually have
media.ffmpeg.enabled set to false by default, because Fedora's variant
of ffmpeg has this prob
On Sun, Jun 5, 2022 at 9:37 AM Vitaly Zaitsev via devel
wrote:
>
> On 04/06/2022 22:43, Otto Urpelainen wrote:
> > But the question is, what needs to be done so that ffmpeg-free will not
> > suffer, either.
>
> ffmpeg-free is a special stripped version. Popular codecs H.264 and
> H.265 were remove
Il 05/06/22 09:37, Vitaly Zaitsev via devel ha scritto:
> On 04/06/2022 22:43, Otto Urpelainen wrote:
>> But the question is, what needs to be done so that ffmpeg-free will not
>> suffer, either.
> ffmpeg-free is a special stripped version. Popular codecs H.264 and
> H.265 were removed due to the
On 04/06/2022 22:43, Otto Urpelainen wrote:
But the question is, what needs to be done so that ffmpeg-free will not
suffer, either.
ffmpeg-free is a special stripped version. Popular codecs H.264 and
H.265 were removed due to the legal reasons. You should always use the
fully featured version
Vitaly Zaitsev via devel kirjoitti 4.6.2022 klo 14.04:
On 04/06/2022 00:05, Otto Urpelainen wrote:
It seems clear that there is a bug somewhere, but I cannot decide,
where, hence this post to devel. Should Fedora's Firefox actually have
media.ffmpeg.enabled set to false by default, because Fedo
I could try that I just happened to have tested Firefox updates on Fedora
35 and 36, today and yesterday. I encountered problems with media playback
even with openh264 enabled.
I will let you know if it fixes the audio issue as well.
On Sat, 4 Jun 2022 at 12:05, Vitaly Zaitsev via devel <
devel@l
On 04/06/2022 00:05, Otto Urpelainen wrote:
It seems clear that there is a bug somewhere, but I cannot decide,
where, hence this post to devel. Should Fedora's Firefox actually have
media.ffmpeg.enabled set to false by default, because Fedora's variant
of ffmpeg has this problem? Should upstrea
Otto Urpelainen wrote:
> This is unexpected, because one would expect that installing any variant
> of ffmpeg would improve video support, not degrade it. My hypothesis is
> that Firefox prefers ffmpeg over openh264, but is not careful enough to
> check if the ffmpeg it detects actually supports h2
I have discovered that installing the ffmpeg-free package degrades
Firefox video support. Without any kind of ffmpeg installed, Firefox is
able to play all the videos I want to watch. Installing RPM Fusion's
ffmpeg package does not change this. But, installing ffmpeg-free from
Fedora repositori
74 matches
Mail list logo
