[FFmpeg-devel] [PATCH] web/download: update min. kernel version for linux binaries

[Carl Eugen Hoyos]

Am Mi., 18. März 2020 um 07:04 Uhr schrieb Gyan Doshi <ffmpeg at gyani.pro>:
>
> On 14-03-2020 07:15 pm, Carl Eugen Hoyos wrote:
> > Am Sa., 14. März 2020 um 14:24 Uhr schrieb Gyan Doshi <ffmpeg at gyani.pro>:
> >>
> >> On 14-03-2020 06:11 pm, Carl Eugen Hoyos wrote:
> >>> Am Sa., 14. März 2020 um 13:19 Uhr schrieb Gyan Doshi <ffmpeg at gyani.pro>:
> >>>>
> >>>> On 14-03-2020 04:29 pm, Carl Eugen Hoyos wrote:
> >>>>> Am Sa., 14. März 2020 um 07:31 Uhr schrieb Gyan Doshi <ffmpeg at gyani.pro>:
> >>>>>> As per https://johnvansickle.com/ffmpeg/
> >>>>>> ---
> >>>>>>     src/download | 2 +-
> >>>>>>     1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> diff --git a/src/download b/src/download
> >>>>>> index 6292a7e..d9155ee 100644
> >>>>>> --- a/src/download
> >>>>>> +++ b/src/download
> >>>>>> @@ -70,7 +70,7 @@
> >>>>>>                 <h3>Linux Static Builds</h3>
> >>>>>>                 <div class="list-group">
> >>>>>>                   <a class="list-group-item" href="https://johnvansickle.com/ffmpeg/">32-bit and
> >>>>>> -                64-bit for kernel 2.6.32 and above</a>
> >>>>>> +                64-bit for kernel 3.2.0 and above</a>
> >>>>> Shouldn't we instead remove the line?
> >>>> Why?
> >>> Because we cannot know which kernel version the binaries currently require
> >> We know, because the provider mentions it.

I should probably mention that I don't think this was a very useful comment.

> >>> Are we mentioning that the Zeranoe binaries do not work on XP?
> >> Or on Vista, as mentioned by the provider.  That should be noted.
> >>
> >> As long as the qualifications don't get too verbose, no harm in
> >> adding/maintaining the practice.
> > I believe it is better if Zeranoe and johnvansickle mention it, we
> > should remove the existing line.
>
> They already so. So have we, for some years now. Why haven't
> you removed it yet?

Why haven't you fixed a few user-reported bugs lately?
Sorry, I really don't understand your question.

> In any case, the current line is wrong. So it has to be either updated
> or removed. I propose updating it.

You know how much I hate the word here but the "cleaner" solution
to me seems to simply remove the mentioning of the kernel.

Carl Eugen