ffmpeg and libfaac support

[Andrea]

The latest update from rpmfusion of ffmpeg dropped support for libfaac.

the changelog mentions it

* Thu Oct 22 2009 Dominik Mierzejewski <rpm at greysector.net> - 0.5-3
- dropped workaround for non-standard openjpeg headers location
- Add BR dirac vdpau. (kwizart)
- Don't build faac by default because it's nonfree. (kwizart)
- fixed PowerPC builds (bug 808)

Do we have an alternative? What's the point?

I see that ffmpeg still supports mp3. I thought it was not free either.

Andrea

[Rahul Sundaram]

On 11/08/2009 01:58 AM, Andrea wrote:
> The latest update from rpmfusion of ffmpeg dropped support for libfaac.
>
> the changelog mentions it
> Thu Oct 22 2009 Dominik Mierzejewski <rpm at greysector.net> - 0.5-3
> dropped workaround for non-standard openjpeg headers location
> Add BR dirac vdpau. (kwizart)
> Don't build faac by default because it's nonfree. (kwizart)
> fixed PowerPC builds (bug 808)
>
> Do we have an alternative? What's the point?
>
> I see that ffmpeg still supports mp3. I thought it was not free either.

Common confusion. MP3 decoders are free and open source but patent
encumbered in some regions and hence included in the "free" repository
of RPM Fusion

https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Software_Patents

The non-free repository of RPM Fusion has proprietary (in terms of
copyright licensing) software packages.

Rahul

[Andrea]

On 07/11/09 20:28, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
> On 11/08/2009 01:58 AM, Andrea wrote:
> > The latest update from rpmfusion of ffmpeg dropped support for libfaac.
> >
> > the changelog mentions it
> > Thu Oct 22 2009 Dominik Mierzejewski <rpm at greysector.net> - 0.5-3
> > dropped workaround for non-standard openjpeg headers location
> > Add BR dirac vdpau. (kwizart)
> > Don't build faac by default because it's nonfree. (kwizart)
> > fixed PowerPC builds (bug 808)
> >
> > Do we have an alternative? What's the point?
> >
> > I see that ffmpeg still supports mp3. I thought it was not free either.
>
> Common confusion. MP3 decoders are free and open source but patent
> encumbered in some regions and hence included in the "free" repository
> of RPM Fusion
>
> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Software_Patents
>
> The non-free repository of RPM Fusion has proprietary (in terms of
> copyright licensing) software packages.
>
> Rahul

Thanks for the explanation.

I don't know if you "work" in rpmfusion, but unless they add a ffmpeg-nonfree package, it becomes
totally useless, forcing the users (who have already agreed to use nonfree software) to move to yet
an other rpm repository with countless dependency issues.

I hope that recompiling the srpm will not be a week-job, I'm going to try now.

[Rahul Sundaram]

On 11/08/2009 01:39 PM, Andrea wrote:
> Thanks for the explanation.
>
> I don't know if you "work" in rpmfusion, but unless they add a ffmpeg-nonfree package, it becomes
> totally useless, forcing the users (who have already agreed to use nonfree software) to move to yet
> an other rpm repository with countless dependency issues.
>
> I hope that recompiling the srpm will not be a week-job, I'm going to try now.

I am a Fedora contributor and not a RPM Fusion contributor but you can
find some discussions at

http://lists.rpmfusion.org/pipermail/rpmfusion-developers/2009-October/00622...

Rahul

[Michael Cronenworth]

On 11/08/2009 02:09 AM, Andrea wrote:
> Thanks for the explanation.
>
> I don't know if you "work" in rpmfusion, but unless they add a ffmpeg-nonfree package, it becomes
> totally useless, forcing the users (who have already agreed to use nonfree software) to move to yet
> an other rpm repository with countless dependency issues.
>
> I hope that recompiling the srpm will not be a week-job, I'm going to try now.

File[1] a bug or drop a line on their mailing list[2]. I suggest doing 
both. Fedora-list isn't a place you can guarantee results.

[1] https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/
[2] http://lists.rpmfusion.org/mailman/listinfo