[KSV]

@mods

why the rtmpdump release thread has been deleted? is it temporary or it's gone for good?

[svnpenn]

web.archive.org/web/stream-recorder.com/forum/can-download-latest-version-rtmpdump-source-binaries-t5533.html

Not good :(

[karlo2105]

I hope this decision won't prevent you to continue to publish rtmpdump release. Please keep on. ;)

[mattias]

I'm new here and excuse me if my questions are newbieish... Maybe the answer to my question are in this forum.

From what I understand the rtmpdump was made by Andrej Stepanchuk and Howard Chu and published at http://rtmpdump.mplayerhq.hu/.

KSV, as your updates aren't published at rtmpdump.mplayerhq.hu, I guess you're not one of the MPlayer-team. Do you have their go ahead to publish a 2.4 version of rtmpdump? :confused:


/Mattias

[karlo2105]

I'm new here and excuse me if my questions are newbieish... Maybe the answer to my question are in this forum.

From what I understand the rtmpdump was made by Andrej Stepanchuk and Howard Chu and published at http://rtmpdump.mplayerhq.hu/.

SVE, as your updates aren't published at rtmpdump.mplayerhq.hu, I guess you're not one of the MPlayer-team. Do you have their go ahead to publish a 2.4 version of rtmpdump? :confused:


/Mattias

It's a GPL software (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNU_General_Public_License) which means anyobody who adheres to the terms and conditions is given permission to modify the work, as well as to copy and redistribute the work or any derivative version.

[mattias]

Karlo, thanks for the info on the license. But it would still be good with a permission before naming your own version rtmpdump 2.4 ?

[KSV]

if somebody got some problem with name someday i will just call it rtmpdump-ksv (a fork of rtmpdump) :D

[karlo2105]

Karlo, thanks for the info on the license. But it would still be good with a permission before naming your own version rtmpdump 2.4 ?

No permission is needed for any GPL software. It means you can modify it as long as you want but the only thing you have to do in order to respect license is to publish source code with your changes. :D

@KSV
If further rtmpdump release is forbidden here, you are welcome to come to Wiziwig forum. ;-)

[mattias]

KSV, that what exactly what I was thinking. You can call it rtmpdump-KSV.

Of course it would be better if all contributions were collected in a collective collaboration, but we would of course rather see KSV realease his improvements as rtmpdump-KSV than not seeing them at all.

Offtopic:
By the way, here's another version of rtmpdump 2.3, with some small buggfix and made to compile in Visual Studio:
http://www.warezerver.net/rtmpdump.html

Just to add to the confusion...

[mattias]

Karlo, I'm sure no one wants to forbid KSV from releasing his versions here, but the official rtmpdump is currently the baby of this guy Howard Chu. He has probably put a lot of effort into making it, and we have to respect that. You can't go around snatching peoples babies from their arms, people get upset!

[karlo2105]

Oh come on when one software is released on GPL it means nobody can forbid further releasing of this software under this name. GPL means public domain.
It's stupid to change name of GPL software. Open source means collaboration. KSV please don't change rtmpdump name you don't have to do it as licence doesn't oblige you to.

I guess official rtmpdump developers are jealous of your work because they make once a year their release which no one uses as it becomes quickly out of date.

[KSV]

By the way, here's another version of rtmpdump 2.3, with some small buggfix and made to compile in Visual Studio:
http://www.warezerver.net/rtmpdump.html

Just to add to the confusion...
i just compared the rtmpdump.c file from that link with latest git version and couldn't find any relevant changes to file resume functionality. most probably those changes were merged later with rtmpdump so that version doesn't seems relevant any longer.

Karlo, I'm sure no one wants to forbid KSV from releasing his versions here, but the official rtmpdump is currently the baby of this guy Howard Chu. He has probably put a lot of effort into making it, and we have to respect that. You can't go around snatching peoples babies from their arms, people get upset!

providing precompiled binaries doesn't amounts to taking credit from original author. i have never claimed myself as author of rtmpdump anywhere. full credit and respect goes to hyc for creating and maintaining that. personally i don't think thread was deleted due to complaint from hyc. it just may be a mistake. awaiting admin or mod's reply.

[buksnatata]

lol it is GPL licence...

[svnpenn]

If KSV will send me any uncommited changes I will create a repo on GitHub and put them all there.

[toine512]

I agree with svnpenn.

[mattias]

So we can now find it here:
https://github.com/svnpenn/rtmpdump

And anyone who wants to contribute with an improvement could contact you Svnpenn?

[svnpenn]

It is your choice really. You can:

* email me
* post in this forum
* post to the mailing list
* do a "pull request" on GitHub

the last option is actually the "correct" way to do things

help.github.com/send-pull-requests

[Stream Ripper]

I don't recall this thread, can somebody provide a link to it here please?

Maybe you've got one in a notifications email that a reply was made you can use.

Thanks

[svnpenn]

I don't recall this thread, can somebody provide a link to it here please?

web.archive.org/web/stream-recorder.com/forum/can-download-latest-version-rtmpdump-source-binaries-t5533.html

[Stream Ripper]

web.archive.org/web/stream-recorder.com/forum/can-download-latest-version-rtmpdump-source-binaries-t5533.html

Thanks - so the original URL was http://stream-recorder.com/forum/can-download-latest-version-rtmpdump-source-binaries-t5533.html

I was not able to find it, nor do I know why it was deleted unfortunately. :(

[KSV]

so if we create a new thread it wouldn't be a problem. anyway thread should be available in one of your backups.

[Stream Ripper]

so if we create a new thread it wouldn't be a problem. anyway thread should be available in one of your backups.

Please - create a new one! As long as it doesn't go against any TOS it should be fine.

[hyc]

For the record, I haven't been on here in months. I didn't complain about any thread, and I have no idea why the previous thread disappeared.

KSV and any other programmers are welcome to continue contributing their code.

Oh come on when one software is released on GPL it means nobody can forbid further releasing of this software under this name. GPL means public domain.


**Removed insult** GPL does not mean public domain.


I guess official rtmpdump developers are jealous of your work because they make once a year their release which no one uses as it becomes quickly out of date.

Anyone who actually knows how to read can easily see that your statement is false.

[Stream Ripper]

Ladies, let's take it easy ok? :cool:

Thanks

[svnpenn]

I guess official rtmpdump developers are jealous of your work because they make once a year their release which no one uses as it becomes quickly out of date.

It is clear you dont understand open source software.

[karlo2105]

It is clear you dont understand open source software.

Open source means everyone can create, modify code as long they provide their source code with changes.
What I don't understand is why official release thread was removed. That's why I gave one of possible explanations. :p If you have another one I will be pleased to hear it.

[svnpenn]

Remember that the recipient is a human being whose culture, language, and humor have different points of reference from your own. Remember that date formats, measurements, and idioms may not travel well. Be especially careful with sarcasm.

ietf.org/rfc/rfc1855

Your post was both incorrect and highly insulting to people, including hyc, who have spent years creating this piece of software.

Next time before you post, you would do well to consider that.

[compn]

@mods

why the rtmpdump release thread has been deleted? is it temporary or it's gone for good?

i was actually looking for the thread too since i am too lazy to compile my own build w/ fixes. i didnt delete it.

also i'd love to put the updated binaries on http://rtmpdump.mplayerhq.hu . just send me a url or email me a zip or whatever. send to projects@mplayerhq.hu

[KSV]

i was actually looking for the thread too since i am too lazy to compile my own build w/ fixes. i didnt delete it.


here is new thread for unofficial binaries. first post is updated.
http://stream-recorder.com/forum/release-unofficial-rtmpdump-binaries-t11030.html


also i'd love to put the updated binaries on http://rtmpdump.mplayerhq.hu . just send me a url or email me a zip or whatever. send to projects@mplayerhq.hu
are you talking about binaries compiled from unmodified official sources?

[compn]

yes, i dont mind posting updated modified builds.
better than older version which has stopped working.

at least theres no harm in posting both.

[Eldorado]

Sorry for resurrecting an old thread, but was the only one I could find where there was talk of including KSV's patches to the official RTMPDump site

The XBMC team wants to only include 'official' librtmp builds into their releases, so is incorporating the work KSV has done into the main source or posting the binaries/source on the rtmpdump site a possibility?

[KSV]

Well the short answer is no. there are many patches lying around on the mailing list without someone reviewing or committing them. also there is lack of positive attitude.

[karlo2105]

The XBMC team wants to only include 'official' librtmp builds into their releases, so is incorporating the work KSV has done into the main source or posting the binaries/source on the rtmpdump site a possibility?

Why don't you include KSV patches, he has done so patches work so far, so his release is relevant to be used by XBMC team or you prefere to stay with official but unptached release. :D

[Eldorado]

Why don't you include KSV patches, he has done so patches work so far, so his release is relevant to be used by XBMC team or you prefere to stay with official but unptached release. :D

Well its not my decision as I'm just a user and an addon dev, not apart of the XBMC dev team so it's ultimately up to them.. I'm just trying to get some wheels turning and have up to date librtmp builds included

Since KSV says it's a no then I think this is the next best option, I'll pitch them the idea and see if it gets somewhere

thanks!

[svnpenn]

With all due respect to KSV, he hasnt posted a single commit to RtmpDump, only a flood of combined patch files.

I find this very strange because he has done well with his "Scripts" repo.

[karlo2105]

With all due respect to KSV, he hasnt posted a single commit to RtmpDump, only a flood of combined patch files.

I find this very strange because he has done well with his "Scripts" repo.

KSV is keeping rtmpdump up to date and for this he should be acknowledged. Without his patches many streams would not work and I don't think there is many persons like him who would do it regulary.
Xeeby managed to open handshake 10 and I am grateful for this to him.
KSV is maintining several scripts up to date. I guss he has also job and family life. So instead of complaining you could at least recognize that he is doing his best.

[svnpenn]

So instead of complaining you could at least recognize that he is doing his best

With all due respect to KSV, he hasnt posted a single commit to RtmpDump, only a flood of combined patch files.

I find this very strange because he has done well with his "Scripts" repo.

​​​​​

[KSV]

he hasnt posted a single commit to RtmpDump, only a flood of combined patch files.

flood? oh really :mad:

i have never sent my combined patch file to mailing list. all the patches i submitted there were segregated and explained separately. IIRC last patch i sent was related to some RTMPT fixes but nobody cared to review it. combined patch file is only included with my package releases and makes it easier to apply it cleanly against latest git revision with single command instead of many separate patches generated against different git revisions.

how far you got when you submitted my live flag detection patch? they started bashing it saying it's invalid code and will crash while it's perfectly valid code and works as intended. it's not my job to convince someone to include it in their repo. honestly i don't care if it's in official repo or not. if i can use my written code that's good enough for me.

[svnpenn]

i have never sent my combined patch file to mailing list. all the patches i submitted there were segregated and explained separately. IIRC last patch i sent was related to some RTMPT fixes but nobody cared to review it. combined patch file is only included with my package releases and makes it easier to apply it cleanly against latest git revision with single command instead of many separate patches generated against different git revisions.

how far you got when you submitted my live flag detection patch? they started bashing it saying it's invalid code and will crash while it's perfectly valid code and works as intended. it's not my job to convince someone to include it in their repo. honestly i don't care if it's in official repo or not. if i can use my written code that's good enough for me.

Pretty much all this is true.

My beef is with a single patch file users have no way to see the code changes involved in each patch. If a user wanted to implement just one of your changes, they would have to pick through your patch file and figure out what parts are relevant for each change, as I have.

[karlo2105]

Pretty much all this is true.

My beef is with a single patch file users have no way to see the code changes involved in each patch. If a user wanted to implement just one of your changes, they would have to pick through your patch file and figure out what parts are relevant for each change, as I have.

Why would user implement only one patch from KSV and not all? It's nonsense.

[svnpenn]

Why would user implement only one patch from KSV and not all? It's nonsense.

That fact that you dont understand it, does not make it nonsense.