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

[Gyan Doshi]

On 18-03-2020 02:44 pm, Carl Eugen Hoyos wrote:
> 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.

The current practice if mentioning kernel/OS thresholds has been in 
place for some years now. You apparently have a problem with it. YAnd 
you haven't pushed a patch to remove it. Why now?

>> 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.

Do you want to remove the OS versions from Mac/Win links as well?

Gyan