AUR (en) - svt-av1-psy-git

Search Criteria

Package Details: svt-av1-psy-git 2.0.0.rc2.r2.gc233913e-2

Git Clone URL:	https://aur.archlinux.org/svt-av1-psy-git.git (read-only, click to copy)
Package Base:	svt-av1-psy-git
Description:	Bleeding edge psycho-visually focused fork of SVT-AV1
Upstream URL:	https://github.com/gianni-rosato/svt-av1-psy
Licenses:	BSD, custom: Alliance for Open Media Patent License 1.0
Conflicts:	svt-av1, svt-av1-git
Provides:	svt-av1, svt-av1-git
Submitter:	BlueSwordM
Maintainer:	BlueSwordM (jholmer)
Last Packager:	BlueSwordM
Votes:	4
Popularity:	0.094883
First Submitted:	2024-03-02 18:12 (UTC)
Last Updated:	2024-03-07 04:25 (UTC)

Git Clone URL:

https://aur.archlinux.org/svt-av1-psy-git.git (read-only, click to copy)

Package Base:

svt-av1-psy-git

Description:

Bleeding edge psycho-visually focused fork of SVT-AV1

Upstream URL:

https://github.com/gianni-rosato/svt-av1-psy

Licenses:

BSD, custom: Alliance for Open Media Patent License 1.0

Conflicts:

svt-av1, svt-av1-git

Provides:

svt-av1, svt-av1-git

Submitter:

BlueSwordM

Maintainer:

BlueSwordM (jholmer)

Last Packager:

BlueSwordM

Votes:

Popularity:

0.094883

First Submitted:

2024-03-02 18:12 (UTC)

Last Updated:

2024-03-07 04:25 (UTC)

Latest Comments

1 2 Next › Last »

ioctl commented on 2025-10-16 07:49 (UTC)

Will this package be update with the svt-av1-psyex new URL?

BlueSwordM commented on 2025-04-30 18:48 (UTC)

The 3.0.2 merge is done.

You can now update.

haroldojunios commented on 2025-03-14 13:33 (UTC)

@BoostCookie there are branches for the version 3.0.0, I think that we just need to wait the merge

BoostCookie commented on 2025-03-12 19:27 (UTC)

@haroldojunios Is a fix possible in the PKGBUILD or should we open an issue on https://github.com/psy-ex/svt-av1-psy/issues ?

haroldojunios commented on 2025-03-10 17:00 (UTC) (edited on 2025-03-10 17:01 (UTC) by haroldojunios)

After the last ffmpeg update to version 2:7.1-7 it now requires libSvtAv1Enc.so.3 and this package provides libSvtAv1Enc.so.2.

BlueSwordM commented on 2024-11-02 22:51 (UTC)

@NextWorks, the reason is that it depends on what the user decides. I'm not one to force another dependency.

NextWorks commented on 2024-10-31 13:49 (UTC)

why that package isn't using clang/llvm?

jholmer commented on 2024-09-27 15:09 (UTC)

Replacing the - in the tag name with . in the PKGBUILD causes pacman to see 2.2.1.A.r0 as a downgrade from 2.2.1.r0. I think this is the same cause of the issue @sommio is reporting. Removing that replace from the pkgver function would likely resolve this, unless there was a reason we needed to replace it.

BlueSwordM commented on 2024-04-25 15:18 (UTC)

@xiota and @sommio, thank you for noticing these issues.

I'll make sure to fix them once I'm done with higher priority stuff.