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

[Carl Eugen Hoyos]

Am Mi., 18. März 2020 um 12:34 Uhr schrieb Gyan Doshi <ffmpeg at gyani.pro>:
>
>
>
> 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?

I can only repeat:
Imo, this is not a very constructive 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.
>
> Do you want to remove the OS versions from Mac/Win links as well?

An alternative would be to mention non-supported kernel and os versions
(instead of supported).

Carl Eugen