README.md: remove dead homebrew-mpv link

[vitorgalvao]

Link wasn’t attached to anything, and was referencing an archived repo anyway.

However (and this is a repeat of mpv-player/mpv-build#122), you may want to consider reviving that repo, seeing as the homebrew formula was removed. There is a cask but it uses the prebuilt binaries from stolendata as referenced on your website.

The formula was almost four times more popular than the cask (6,938 vs 1,848 downloads in the last 90 days), which is why I mentioned reviving the formula on your side.

I’m a Homebrew Cask maintainer, so feel free to ask any clarification on the formula vs cask.

[Akemi]

tbh i have no idea where the homebrew guys got some of the ideas from in that commit message. that's not our official stance, looks more like they tried to find some more constructed reasons to remove the formula.

we still support tagged releases and we will still tag releases in the future (#6936)

[vitorgalvao]

tbh i have no idea where the homebrew guys got some of the ideas from in that commit message.
(…)
we still support tagged releases and we will still tag releases in the future

In all honesty, though I was only aware of the removal after it happened and I’m an enthusiastic mpv user, I too was under the impression that you only offered support for master (which is how I read the commit message). But I indeed can’t tell you where I got that idea. Perhaps an older issue template or contributing doc? Maybe I’m conflating the rules of the mpv organisation with youtube-dl? Do they do that?

looks more like they tried to find some more constructed reasons to remove the formula.

I can assure you that would not be the case. As an example, I’ve recently developed a script to auto-remove unpopular casks from Homebrew Cask. When I offered to do the same for Homebrew formulae, those maintainers were against it (we have different rules and teams). Popularity and alternatives are always a consideration when removing software from Homebrew, and mpv is very popular (by the way, thank you!).

[Akemi]

though some things come to mind, we had some disagreements with some homebrew maintainers before. one name that comes to mind is ilovezfs. it probably could have been handled better from both sides. one such disagreement was about lua support (#5080, #5205). though there are also example where we worked quite well together #5958.

it's probably the best if we start maintaining our own brew formula again, if anyone is up to do the work, that is.

[ghost]

I don't really see any need for that. Users can just build manually.

[vitorgalvao]

it's probably the best if we start maintaining our own brew formula again, if anyone is up to do the work, that is.

What about a HEAD-only formula? That shouldn’t require too much tinkering over time. @aerobounce already did some work on that front, maybe they would be interested in doing the work on an official repo.

[ghost]

Oh, I just noticed we don't currently have any actually visible homebrew link in the README. The current "dead" link is unreferenced, and not visible in github's rendering. So I'm merging this.