The Random Thread

astyle said:
The Ports Collection does include tools for dependency analysis. Those tools do allow you to see which ports actually depend on a given port. Same information can be found on the port's FreshPorts page. And offhand, I can say with confidence that there's no ports that depend specifically on having ffmpeg3/4, only plain ffmpeg. Please prove me technically incorrect here.

A reason to have ffmpeg3/4 installed is for obscure features not found in plain ffmpeg. But you'd have to be an A/V geek (with a deep understanding of how to use ffmpeg in command-line, and to have an appreciation of the difference in results produced by the legacy versions vs the plain, up-to-date version) to actually need it all. If he has the expertise (or wants to play with different versions), more power to him.

For compilation from source into a functional DE, ffmpeg3/4 is not technically essential. Plain ffmpeg is, though. Dependency analysis will show you that much.
Click to expand...
I'm not analyzing him, I'm opining on your casual way of demeaning someone because you assume you are smarter than them.

Valid reasons that you are dismissing:
1) One likes to hoard packages for the sake of it.
2) One likes to see the computer compile.
3) One feels lazy and executes a command that includes too much stuff but doesn't care.

I'm sure there are many more.
 
ffmpeg looked complex and I haven't used it directly :p I compiled StepMania with it, and iirc think ffmpeg or libs were useful for video playback or thumbnails.

I used HandBrake for video converting and stuff with subtitles.
 
AlfredoLlaquet said:
I'm not analyzing him, I'm opining on your casual way of demeaning someone because you assume you are smarter than them.

Valid reasons that you are dismissing:
1) One likes to hoard packages for the sake of it.
2) One likes to see the computer compile.
3) One feels lazy and executes a command that includes too much stuff but doesn't care.

I'm sure there are many more.
Click to expand...
Y'know, I take care to be technical here.

Providing technical reasons for not needing something is not considered demeaning at all, at least not on these Forums. Asking someone to stick to the topic of the conversation is NOT a rude thing to say at all.

Just because I have not mentioned certain reasons why someone wants legacy versions of stuff - that does NOT mean I'm casually demeaning the other person and dismissing the reason. I'm just trying to be concise and to the point of the conversation - which is supposedly a courtesy to the other person, y'know.

I sometimes end up with more softwares than I care for - that's the price of specifying too many Makefile knobs.

Besides, both me and Alain De Vos have been around these Forums for years longer than you, AlfredoLlaquet ... We do have a handle on how to talk to each other.
😼
 
astyle said:
Y'know, I take care to be technical here.

Providing technical reasons for not needing something is not considered demeaning at all, at least not on these Forums. Asking someone to stick to the topic of the conversation is NOT a rude thing to say at all.

Just because I have not mentioned certain reasons why someone wants legacy versions of stuff - that does NOT mean I'm casually demeaning the other person and dismissing the reason. I'm just trying to be concise and to the point of the conversation - which is supposedly a courtesy to the other person, y'know.

I sometimes end up with more softwares than I care for - that's the price of specifying too many Makefile knobs.

Besides, both me and Alain De Vos have been around these Forums for years longer than you, AlfredoLlaquet ... We do have a handle on how to talk to each other.
😼
Click to expand...
Saying "Did you notice that others are labeled as "Legacy"? Ever wonder why?" has nothing to do with all those convoluted reasons.

Edit: It's better to say, "Why do you have also the legacy packages?" That is not belittling.

I'm out of this conversation.

😴
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top