The following ports seem to be network programs, that have been put into category "multimedia": multimedia/p5-Net-UPnP multimedia/plexmediaserver multimedia/plexmediaserver-plexpass multimedia/universal-media-server While these ports deliver or control media streams, they do not implement rendering functions, themselves. These ports should be moved into the "net" category, where a large number of similar ports already exist, which deal with media streaming (e.g. minidlna, mediatomb, gmediaserver, fuppes, ushare, miniupnpc, gupnp, ...).
dreamcat4@gmail.com: if you agree, I'll move universal-media-server
(In reply to Kurt Jaeger from comment #1) > dreamcat4@gmail.com: if you agree, I'll move universal-media-server I would say; If a user has no previous knowledge (or assumptions) whatsoever. They will look for uPNP / DLNA Media servers in the multimedia category. Because these are programs that ONLY provide entertainment services to the users. They do not also provide some purely 'network service'. Many programs have networked features but are not put in the 'net' category. 'www' is just one example of that. (heck almost all programs these days have some form of networked communications in them). Personally, I regard the 'net' category as something that offers network-level services (e.g. not as high as the top-tier 'application gateway' slice that is described in the OSI reference model). And 'net' also infers 'inet' - which alludes to suggests something that can also possibly be WAN-based. Also: gupnp says - GUPnP does not include helpers for construction or control of specific standardized resources (e.g. MediaServer); So the port 'gupnp' definitely ISNT a media server does not provide 'entertainment services'. It is providing a lower layer on the OSI model which is not application level, but network level. So is justified to remain in 'net' category. This also seems to be the situation for 'miniupnpc', that it isn't actually a DLNA Compliant Media server. Rather it provides networking features for other application level programs to make use of. So I imagine it should be best to remain in the net category too. In the end, I believe that: * The 'net' category is inherently vague, just by the fact that almost everything these days has some network features. * For 'DLNA Media Servers' not to be split around (bad idea), if each port maintainer get one vote. Then my vote, as maintainer of 'universal-media-server', is that they should all be moved into 'multimedia' category. * If no consensus can be agreed upon, then (personally) I would prefer 'universal-media-server' to remain in then multimedia category.
I'm +1 on the primary motivator behind category selection being "Where would our users reasonably expect to find it?" Considering multimedia as the 'service' provided to the user as distinct from a softwares primary 'functional' class makes this easier to identify
(In reply to Kubilay Kocak from comment #3) > I'm +1 on the primary motivator behind category selection being "Where would > our users reasonably expect to find it?" > > Considering multimedia as the 'service' provided to the user as distinct > from a softwares primary 'functional' class makes this easier to identify The problem is, that all DLNA servers have been in "net" for many years. AFAIK, the PlexMediaServer is not using UPnP/DLNA, but a protocol specific to their devices. UPnP is not only used for media streaming, but as a universal network access mechanism. Those UPnP/DLNA servers, that are primarily meant to stream media contents, should probably add multimedia as a secondary category, to make them appear in the package repository under that category. DLNA renderer ports do belong into the multimedia category, most do support other access methods (including local files). UPnP/DLNA controller without rendering functionality are media devices from a user's point of view. But UPnP/DLNA servers are more similar to web servers with addition of service announcements and media file introspection (to distinguish audio/photo/video formats). Therefore, I'd think that the following categories are most appropriate: UPnP/DLNA renderer: multimedia (secondary: net?) UPnP/DLNA controller: multimedia (secondary: net) UPnP/DLNA server: net (secondary: multimedia) But in fact, any other systematic assignment to categories might be OK, as long as it follow some concept. I'd expect to find the others in the same category if I installed one and find that it does not fit my requirements. And UMS is the outlier, right now, since all other DLNA servers are in "net" ...
(In reply to Stefan Esser from comment #4) > (In reply to Kubilay Kocak from comment #3) > > I'm +1 on the primary motivator behind category selection being "Where would > > our users reasonably expect to find it?" > > > > Considering multimedia as the 'service' provided to the user as distinct > > from a softwares primary 'functional' class makes this easier to identify > > The problem is, that all DLNA servers have been in "net" for many years. Is there any chance we can ask those guys again now what they may prefer their primary category? (fuppes, minidlna, etc). If they change it, they can still be in 'net' as their secondary category. > AFAIK, the PlexMediaServer is not using UPnP/DLNA, but a protocol specific > to their devices. AFAICT you are correct that PlexMediaServer does provide media streaming over a proprietary protocol. However it ALSO provides streaming over the DLNA/uPNP protocol too. So it's both. > UPnP is not only used for media streaming, but as a universal network access > mechanism. > Those UPnP/DLNA servers, that are primarily meant to stream media > contents, should probably add multimedia as a secondary category, to make "DLNA Client" OR "DLNA Server" = 'an application' --> firmly 'application' in OSI reference terms. DLNA = almost entirely multimedia services (using / on top of uPNP). --> firmly 'application protocol layer' in OSI reference terms. uPNP = purely networking (IP multicast) --> firmly 'Network layer' in OSI reference model So that is why I believe anything 'DLNA' (be it client or server) should be multimedia as primary category, and (if applicable) with 'net' as secondary. > DLNA renderer ports do belong into the multimedia category, most do support > other access methods (including local files). UPnP/DLNA controller without > rendering functionality are media devices from a user's point of view. Ah. Earlier you said something about my new port 'universal-media-server'. It was: > multimedia/universal-media-server > > While these ports deliver or control media streams, they do not implement rendering functions, themselves. However what you may not be aware of is that starting from version 4 onwards, UMS4 now includes an HTML5 web-based media renderer too. (for mobile devices and PS4, etc). So (if imposing that rule), universal-media-server does provide rendering function too. And is entirely justified to have 'multimedia' as it's primary category. However I just don't believe that's a valid criteria in the first place! > But in fact, any other systematic assignment to categories might be OK, as > long as it follow some concept. I'd expect to find the others in the same > category if I installed one and find that it does not fit my requirements. Agreed. But I would request that you please at least just ask the fuppes, media tomb, and minidlna maintainers, if they would prefer their primary category to be either 'multimedia' or 'net'. Because it looks like they are going to be in both categories now. I also don't mind if you want to include 'universal-media-server' to 'net' as it's secondary category. But I would still very much like 'multimedia' to be it's primary category. They keep adding new features to it, so your criteria (that you are using) won't remain valid. Better to keep it in the same place than have to move it back again later on. By the same reasoning, you could also consider making 'net' a secondary category for plex media server. Since it is plex also functions as a DLNA/uPNP media server too. Ahem. Any chance you can see why i don't really believe these things should be in 'net' at all anymore? It would at least make your life a lot simpler, if anything else trying to establish what is their specific functionality, etc.
I can see a few perspectives and forms of thinking on this in no particular order: a) "Complete Products" vs "Protocol Implementations" -> multimedia net b) DLNA/UPNP is a multimedia specification by definition [1] -> multimedia c) DLNA Server *Only* -> net multimedia d) Controller vs Renderer vs Server vs Permutations-of-Aformentioned I had considered (a) originally as a good baseline for how a user might break down the software landscape, but I believe (b) is the most compelling argument, with perhaps an secondary 'net' category for those ports that consist mostly of network services. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_Living_Network_Alliance
I have no personal objections to a category change for the Plex ports but their featureset might be confusing to some. It provides: - Access to your media library via DLNA - Video transcoding/streaming to a wide variety of devices (Android, iOS, Roku, Chromecast, Smart TVs, Windows/OSX) - Photo storage/syncing from Android/iOS - Music transcoding/streaming to a wide variety of devices (see above list) - Access to your content over HTTP (HTML5 streaming) - Syncing of your media library to cloud storage services for easier remote access - Syncing of video content to local storage of Android, iOS, OSX, Windows so you don't have to stream over the internet. Please feel free to place it wherever it fits best. Thanks!
Over to mediatomb and minidlna maintainers to comment. (could not find yet who own gmediaserver, fuppes, ushare). We ask each of you, do you mind having 'multimedia' as your port's primary category? With 'net' being the secondary category? Our argument / reason is that the DLNA protocol is used exclusively for multimedia services. Many thanks, please indicate your preferences.
And to serviio Maintainer. Please comment your preferences in respect to the above ^^. Many thanks.
Hi, that's not an easy answer... Serviio is in net category (as it is a server), has secondary categories multimedia (DLNA), java (is written in java, not 100% sure if this suites a membership there), www (it offers a web interface to the library in case you buy a license). Serviio is able to show content from the internet (via plugins, not sure if you can call it a content-proxy because of this) and to transcode content on the fly. I took this port over, so I didn't put it in those categories in the first place. I agree that a lot of programs which are not in the net category provide some kind of network capabilities and as such the feature of listening on network ports doesn't mean it has to be in the net category in the first place. Like www for webservers, multimedia for DLNA servers looks suitable too. On the other hand I consider net to be server software for which we don't have a special category like www. For me multimedia is a category where I search video manipulating software (encoders, transcoders, multimdeia-container-multiplexers, ...). So while I understand how people could search serviio in multimedia, for me it is more a server in net. As the port maintainer I'm biased, I'm used to see it in net, no idea what I would think as a simple user of the software. Regarding how to find serviio in our ports collection... well, I don't look in categories, I search for it either on freshports or more likely via "make quicksearch name=xxx". Does it really matter in this regard what the primary category is (letting consistence with other similar ports aside)? Hmmm... I think the short answer here would be that I want to keep serviio in net, and if there is a majority which thinks it needs to move to multimedia, then I don't mind to move it there (but I think this will surprise/confuse existing users of the port... those which don't care where it is). Bye, Alexander.
Since this PR is not a bug and have not concluded with any actions for 3 years, I am closing it.