Documentation: the "Known bugs" webpage https://xiph.org/flac/documentation_bugs.html

[H2Swine]

The only bug listed is a behaviour that has later been changed because it doesn't make sense to even write seekpoints?

flac hasn't adhered to the tradition of listing known bugs in the man document, so that makes a case for such a webpage. I do think though, that several of the issues users may have are not outright bugs. Like how 1.4.0 rejects out-of-range signals (while some of these files, which do violate the spec, are even decoded as intended with 1.2.1) or ID3 tags. Users could be advised to try the application that wrote an offending file, to decode it and then listen carefully to the output (at low volume first).

I might try to draft such a text if it is welcome.

Apart from that, what are the known bugs? Inconsistent ".aifc" handling, and issue #808 if verified?

[ValeZAA]

The only bug listed is a behaviour that has later been changed because it doesn't make sense to even write seekpoints?

The reason is that ffmpeg flac native encoder does not write SEEKTABLE?

[H2Swine]

No, this is something else - it is about Ogg FLAC. The 1.4.3 changelog says
No longer write seektables to Ogg, even when specifically asked for. Seektables in Ogg are not defined
The "bug" listed on https://xiph.org/flac/documentation_bugs.html is back to version 1.3.1, which behaves as follows:
When encoding to Ogg FLAC, the number of seek points is limited to 240.

But in the larger picture, this issue is about that web page. Which could maybe include compatibility issues, because some of those have arisen when various tools have written non-compliant files that all for sudden are rejected.

[ValeZAA]

When encoding to Ogg FLAC, the number of seek points is limited to 240.

What is a seek point in this context? SEEKTABLE is inside flac or maybe even inside headerless flac. If ogg seek point on container level is what this is about do you still think ffmpeg should implement SEEKTABLE?

[ktmf01]

I think the web page should be removed.

Yes, there have been some changes in behaviour which are nice to document, but I don't think drafting it somewhere in the official documentation is necessary. I'm counting on people using search engines will end up on relevant forum topics discussing these issues.