[FFmpeg-user] Libav (Avconv) Imposition on Users who want FFmpeg

[miro.rovis at croatiafidelis.hr]

On 2014-04-21 23:37, Carl Eugen Hoyos wrote:
> <miro.rovis <at> croatiafidelis.hr> writes:
> 
>> I notice only now that FFmpeg hosts a mailing list for
>> libav (if my understanding is correct that that's the
>> library containing avconv program, a fork of ffmpeg)
> 
> FFmpeg does not host a mailing list for avconv, no.
> 
> FFmpeg provides several libraries, among them libavcodec,
> libavformat, libavfilter, libpostproc, libswscale,
> libswresample and libavutil.
> All these libraries (and the ffmpeg, ffplay, etc.
> programs) are supported on FFmpeg mailing lists, see
> http://ffmpeg.org/contact.html
> 
>> http://lists.ffmpeg.org/pipermail/ffmpeg-user/2012-December/012223.html
>> "> avconv version v9_beta2-501-g6d5b009
>> 
>> This application is known to contain several hundred bugs
>> not present in FFmpeg, some of them security relevant,
>> please understand that we therefore cannot support it."
>> 
>> But not anything openly telling for the public.
> 
> How can I be more public?
> Sorry if I misunderstand but users reported many
> hundred bugs in the last three years (since a group of
> FFmpeg developers tried to take over the project), many
> of these bugs were fixed in FFmpeg but not fixed in
> avconv.
> 
> Your email is very difficult to understand (but I am not
> a native speaker), maybe these links help you:
> http://blog.pkh.me/p/13-the-ffmpeg-libav-situation.html

I'll read this again.

> https://packages.gentoo.org/package/media-video/ffmpeg
> (If you cannot use 2.2, please use at least 1.2)
> https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=729203
> http://anonscm.debian.org/gitweb/?p=collab-maint/ffmpeg.git;a=summary

I'll study those too.

> If you have questions remaining, please ask them!
> 
> Carl Eugen
> 
> _______________________________________________
> ffmpeg-user mailing list
> ffmpeg-user at ffmpeg.org
> http://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-user

Carl, in the first place, thank you for your kind reply.

But there were two more replies, of which this one:
https://ffmpeg.org/pipermail/ffmpeg-user/2014-April/021026.html
I don't understand (not even if it was addressed to me or to Leonard 
Bogard

But this I can say.
That page was down, and it is "coincidence", IMO.
I then performed an air-gap manouver which is very costly timewise, so 
it wasn't possible for me to reply earlier. Will be clarified first next 
(see below).

I'll send what I had prepared. I see some people will be interested.
And I see now that the page is up, and that I am probably not banned.
Am I, again, like I already was, for no just reasno, Gentoo people 
(who, if not earlier, will probably read this later)?

So, if not only the page is up, but also I am not banned, then I will 
post my short research that I announced, there, on Gentoo Forums, and as 
far as depends on me, announce promptly on this list when I do so.

Sorry for not very clear meanings, but it is also the reason, that the 
most important part, the tecnhical part is only coming (the second) 
next.

So first next is what I prepared when I thought I wouldn't be allowed 
transparency about what I deem misdeeds against good programs like 
FFmpeg.

Miroslav Rovis
Zagreb, Croatia
www.CroatiaFidelis.hr