ffmpeg-kit
ffmpeg-kit copied to clipboard
arthenica
Provide `.APK`s via `/Releases` tab.
Is your feature request related to a problem? Please describe.
https://github.com/MycroftAI/Mycroft-Android/issues/107#issue-1790168261
Precompiled versions aren't provided in any form, and I will never bother to compile this for myself constantly. It also allows those who use something like https://f-droid.org/en/packages/net.xzos.upgradeall/ to update this package without having to use https://play.google.com or https://f-droid.org.
Additionally, this would at least allow repositories such as IzzySoft's to serve the software until this is added to the primary F-Droid repository.
Describe the solution you'd like
Publish .APK files via https://github.com/arthenica/ffmpeg-kit/releases.
Describe alternatives you've considered Compilation to F-Droid, and potentially the Google Play Store.
This issue is stale because it has been open 60 days with no activity. Remove stale label or comment or this will be closed in 7 days.
![github-actions[bot] avatar](https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/in/15368?v=4 "Published by a pub.dev verified publisher"){kind=small}
This issue was closed because it has been stalled for 7 days with no activity.
I've joined the fucking army. I don't necessarily have 7 days free to check GitHub. You should seriously consider reconfiguring that ridiculous automation software. Arbitrary timespans are never the solution to anything.
This issue is stale because it has been open 60 days with no activity. Remove stale label or comment or this will be closed in 7 days.
Apologies to any that are subscribed, but blame this arbitrary "staleness".
We have the ffmpeg-kit-test repository where we have example applications for each platform and version. It can be used to evaluate releases.
@rokejulianlockhart I'm not familiar with programming so I don't know what to do. I looked in the Android folder as you said, but there is no apk. where can i find it?
@tanersener, for @bluewidy's sake, does https://github.com/arthenica/ffmpeg-kit-test/tree/main/android necessitate compilation?
I didn't bother to verify https://github.com/arthenica/ffmpeg-kit/issues/522#issuecomment-1371391921 when I decided to close this. Should this be refiled at https://github.com/arthenica/ffmpeg-kit-test/issues?
Would be nice if https://github.com/arthenica/ffmpeg-kit-test/releases/tag/android.v5.1 contained a precompiled APK, per this issue.
Would be nice if https://github.com/arthenica/ffmpeg-kit-test/releases/tag/android.v5.1 contained a precompiled APK, per this issue.
I want it!
Folks, we have a scope in this project. Releasing an apk is definitely out of scope. And won't come in.
Why? Because we are targeting app developers here. The idea is to provide an ffmpeg library that app developers can use in their apps. Publishing an apk, something that an end-user user can use, has legal implications. We can be sued and penalised for that. Sorry but we can't do that.
Do I need to install a Linux operating system on my computer to do it...? But... I already have windows installed. Then do I have to delete windows, install linux, go through that process, and install windows again... right?
@tanersener, an APK doesn't have to be usable by end-users any more than a Linux package does. APKs don't exist to provide graphical interfaces; they're merely the packaging format of the Linux distribution that is Android.
Use Tachiyomi's extension APKs as an example. They're merely dependencies, installed when necessary. The user cannot invoke them except via the activities that they expose to activity managers and Tachiyomi itself.
@rokejulianlockhart The first post says that you don't want to compile anything in order to evaluate the releases. Not compiling/building anything, installing an apk and running ffmpeg provided there describes an end-user behaviour to me. Any user who doesn't have development knowledge can do that.
Additionally, in the last post, you are describing Linux packages with no user interface. Yes, they do exist. But developers have to develop (compile) something (CLI, GUI) to be able to use them. You cannot directly use an .so or .a library on Unix systems because they are not executable. So, I really don't get how you plan to use those packages without compiling anything.
Lastly, Tachiyomi project you mentioned above. I don't think we can compare it with ffmpeg-kit. It is not licensed under the LGPL/GPL. And, it is not subject to software patents as ffmpeg is.
@tanersener, I realize ffmpeg is only a library. I don't even know what sort of end-user GUI you envision. I only want it compiled as an APK to be able to install it and call it from APK-packaged Android software. I want to use it as a library. This is a packaging request seriously like any other.
How is Tachiyomi's situation incomparable because of their license? Do you believe that I mentioned it so that you might use its codebase? If so, I clarify that it was solely to demonstrate that APKs are for any kind of sofware, as is true for basically any package format except Flatpak.
(Additionally, Tachiyomi does have to manage copyrighted content, but it is media copyright rather than software copyright, though I don't see how that relates to this.)
@rokejulianlockhart I'm not envisioning any kind of GUI. I'm only quoting your posts. Please read my posts again.
A library is not an executable. Not on Linux, not on Android. A library can be linked by another app, library, etc. But this linking process is called compilation/building. Which, according to your first post, is something you don't want to do. That's what I'm reiterating in my last post.
We are distributing Android binaries in AAR format. Which is an Android standard for this kind of projects. And, we are open to ideas to improve the packing or distribution of the libraries. But there must be a motivation, an improvement or a best practice to make a change there. Unfortunately, the request described here is none of them.
How is Tachiyomi's situation incomparable because of their license?
It seems like we are not on the same page about licenses, patents. My suggestions is to ask google the difference between Apache License 2.0 and GPL 3.0. Especially, the difference between distributing an Apache License 2.0 licensed library and a GPL 3.0 licensed library. Then asking google what are the risks of distributing a patented software.
Sorry, I suppose using the terminology “library” was deceptive. I merely considered the term to refer to something like the GNU coreutils; binaries used by loads of software because of their functionality, ubiquity, and ease of installation. I was obviously wrong, but I wanted to distinguish between massive sandboxed formats such as Flatpaks, Snaps, and Android packages and regular UNIX-like packages. Since I can definitely interact and manage APK-packaged software easily, I suggested this, since the APKs would more closely resemble the 3rd option in this instance.
I still don't understand how copyright is relevant. Apologies. If you are referring to the problems incurred by distributing patent-encumbered codecs via channels such as the Play Store, do not worry, for that is irrelevant to this suggestion. APK files can be distributed via any method; they are totally independent of Google's proprietary distribution platform.
Where are the AAR packages?