![]() Regarding that last comment, I feel I see your statement completely opposite: I figured the development section was for developers, and didn't bother reading all the things that weren't relevant (don't have Windows or Mac or Ubuntu right now, and not planning on figuring out how to help develop any time soon). Perhaps an extra sentence fragment on the Docs page or git or both to mention that instructions are at the end of the Doc would help avoid the perceived confusion. I tried to respond this morning, but apparently I lost internet. ![]() I think it's not very nice to work against them.īut hopefully, in the Future, when FlatPak or Snaps get widely accepted, these problems should go away completely. People choose distributions for a reason, and it's usually because they trust their distribution packagers. c) Sometimes I might even agree with the "political reasons" for removing parts of the software. b) When getting it from my distribution, I can be reasonably certain that the packaging fits my system and that all dependencies are correctly installed. Personally, I severely dislike downloading binaries or source and installing them manually: a) it's much more complicated than getting them from my distros package manager. I'm very sorry to hear that, but compiling an application from source will always be cumbersome and error-prone by nature (no matter how much work you put into making it painless), and excludes a wide range of Users who don't have the technical abilities. We do our best to make compiling quick and painless, and it's the best way to ensure full functionality and stability To sum, unofficial builds on third party repositories are almost universally broken and cause a lot of support requests for us. This alleviates the need for external packagers. you are then the packager yourself, the one who knows best.įlatPak then allows your users to install both the runtime that you reference as well as the package you created, on pretty much any system. We have a zero percent success rate asking packagers not to make sweeping changes such as removing MP4 support or swapping Libav for FFmpeg, which are not ABI compatible!Īll the more reason to use FlatPak! You can decide against which runtime you want to compile and completely control the compilation and packaging process. That said, if it is not in a good state, it is unlikely it will be fixed. I will definitely investigate the source RPM to see whether it is altered and/or broken. Sorry to sound grumpy, I really do apppreciate everything you and the other HandBrake developers are doing, but I think highly technical people sometimes forget things like how a fraction of a minority of people are interested in the development and packaging, everyone just want the software to work on their system, and the more systems it works on, the more successful the software. If develops HandBrake on Fedora, where is it?! A flatpack makes all this nonsense go away, so I really hope it happens sooner rather that later! I hope in the future to know more about Linux and be able to help more, but for now I can't compile from source and have zero interest in doing so, like 99.99% of all users of the software. which meant 90% of the Windows software would not run. I tried to switch to Centos myself last year, and was thwarted by a packager simply refusing to compile a 32bit version of Wine for some strange ideological reason. Maybe they are technical geniuses, but from a user of HandBrake's point of view that is irrelevant. The fact that "the excellent CentOS team" have never shipped HandBrake is evidence that they are NOT excellent. I am a user of HandBrake, not a developer or packager, it is kind of crazy to think i would understand the spec file? ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |