> -----Original Message----- > From: ffmpeg-devel <ffmpeg-devel-boun...@ffmpeg.org> On Behalf Of Michael > Niedermayer > Sent: Saturday, November 27, 2021 3:13 PM > To: FFmpeg development discussions and patches <ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org> > Subject: Re: [FFmpeg-devel] [PATCH v3 1/1] fftools/ffprobe: print size of > attachment streams (extradata_size) > > On Sat, Nov 27, 2021 at 01:12:31PM +0000, Soft Works wrote: > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: ffmpeg-devel <ffmpeg-devel-boun...@ffmpeg.org> On Behalf Of Michael > > > Niedermayer > > > Sent: Saturday, November 27, 2021 1:19 PM > > > To: FFmpeg development discussions and patches <ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org> > > > Subject: Re: [FFmpeg-devel] [PATCH v3 1/1] fftools/ffprobe: print size of > > > attachment streams (extradata_size) > > > > > > On Sat, Nov 27, 2021 at 12:58:30AM +0100, Michael Niedermayer wrote: > > > > On Fri, Nov 26, 2021 at 10:01:23PM +0000, Soft Works wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > > > From: ffmpeg-devel <mailto:ffmpeg-devel-boun...@ffmpeg.org> On > Behalf Of > > > Michael > > > > > > Niedermayer > > > > > > Sent: Friday, November 26, 2021 10:26 PM > > > > > > To: FFmpeg development discussions and patches <mailto:ffmpeg- > de...@ffmpeg.org> > > > > > > Subject: Re: [FFmpeg-devel] [PATCH v3 1/1] fftools/ffprobe: print > size > > > of > > > > > > attachment streams (extradata_size) > > > > > > > > > > > > On Fri, Nov 26, 2021 at 07:55:40PM +0000, Soft Works wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > > > > > From: ffmpeg-devel <mailto:ffmpeg-devel-boun...@ffmpeg.org> On > Behalf Of > > > Michael > > > > > > > > Niedermayer > > > > > > > > Sent: Friday, November 26, 2021 7:50 PM > > > > > > > > To: FFmpeg development discussions and patches <mailto:ffmpeg- > de...@ffmpeg.org> > > > > > > > > Subject: Re: [FFmpeg-devel] [PATCH v3 1/1] fftools/ffprobe: > print > > > size of > > > > > > > > attachment streams (extradata_size) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Thu, Nov 25, 2021 at 04:59:41PM +0000, Soft Works wrote: > > > > > > > > > Another attempt: Created on Linux and zipped... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > tested and works > > > > > > > > LGTM > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Today I've seen that the v3 version with the patch as an > attachment > > > has > > > > > > > been processed by patchwork: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > https://patchwork.ffmpeg.org/project/ffmpeg/patch/CH0P223MB03639F30A548FA85C1 > > > > > > mailto:7e8855ba...@ch0p223mb0363.namp223.prod.outlook.com/ > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I've also verified that the output from git format-patch on Linux > was > > > the > > > > > > > same as on Windows. Also, I sent e-mails with the attached patch > to > > > myself > > > > > > > (google-to-google and google-to-ms) and verified that the > attachments > > > were > > > > > > > unchanged. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > My preliminary conclusion for patches containing long lines: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > For patchwork: Use the --attach param for git send-patch > > > > > > > For Michael and maybe others: send as zip attachment 😊 > > > > > > > (not that I could tell the reason) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Might be interesting to check whether there's a difference > between > > > the > > > > > > > e-mail you get and the file you get when downloading the mbox > from > > > > > > patchwork. > > > > > > > > > > > > The attachemnt after the mailing list is broken: > > > > > > https://ffmpeg.org/pipermail/ffmpeg- > > > > > > devel/attachments/20211125/daa80b4e/attachment.bin > > > > > > > > > > > > if you want to help fix this, thats welcome > > > > > > > > > > > > That patchwork has a working patch is interresting but iam not sure > if > > > the > > > > > > awnser to this will help, the problem seems before. So we need a > fix > > > before > > > > > > if you are interrested in helping, there was some prior occurance > of > > > this > > > > > > maybe there was some additional information in that thread > > > > > > > > > > There are two problems - I'm not sure which one you are talking > about: > > > > > > > > theres a problem which has occured previously, for which there is one > > > > or more threads on the ML > > > > if you want to help, find these threads. Throwing out ideas which are > > > > not even consistent with the current facts causes people like me to > > > > waste time looking at the wrong places. > > > > Let alone the problem was not that we didnt know where the bug was > > > > IIRC it was that someone had to fix it > > > > It is true that the new instance here has some currently unexplained > > > > behaviours but neither your 1. or 2. works at explaining them > > > > > > > > > > > > [...] > > > > > > > > > 2. You didn't correctly receive the patch sent as attachment > > > > > > > > > > I just double-checked: The ML software didn't modify the patch when > > > attached > > > > > (as plain-text .patch) > > > > > > > > how did you check that ? > > > > it is broken on my side and it is broken on the server as you can see > by > > > > looking at the link i posted > > > > Also i mailed the correct patch to myself as plain/text attachment and > > > > its perfectly fine. Neither my SMTP server not my local mail handling > > > > did anything odd to the long line > > > > OTOH the mail i received from the ML though contains a base64 encoded > > > > attachment and inside that is a broken patch > > > > if you say you have received a good one then my first intuition is to > > > > ask you to check that again > > > > i took the attachment decoded it with command line base64 -d and it > > > > was not good > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Patchwork could apply this correctly, so I'm not sure what went wrong > > > > > in that case when you couldn't apply it? > > > > > > > > Your attachment is broken on the server already, again > > > > your mail with the attachment: > > > > https://lists.ffmpeg.org/pipermail/ffmpeg-devel/2021- > November/288260.html > > > > and the attachment: > > > > https://ffmpeg.org/pipermail/ffmpeg- > devel/attachments/20211125/daa80b4e/attachment.bin > > > > a954c4f6237453e91ab3e0327ec5eae9 attachment.bin <-- this is the broken > one > > > > > > > > patch --dry-run -p1 <attachment.bin > > > > checking file doc/ffprobe.xsd > > > > checking file fftools/ffprobe.c > > > > Hunk #1 succeeded at 2769 (offset -14 lines). > > > > checking file tests/ref/fate/concat-demuxer-extended-lavf-mxf > > > > checking file tests/ref/fate/concat-demuxer-extended-lavf-mxf_d10 > > > > checking file tests/ref/fate/concat-demuxer-simple1-lavf-mxf > > > > checking file tests/ref/fate/concat-demuxer-simple1-lavf-mxf_d10 > > > > checking file tests/ref/fate/concat-demuxer-simple2-lavf-ts > > > > checking file tests/ref/fate/flv-demux > > > > checking file tests/ref/fate/mov-zombie > > > > checking file tests/ref/fate/mxf-probe-d10 > > > > checking file tests/ref/fate/oggopus-demux > > > > checking file tests/ref/fate/ts-demux > > > > checking file tests/ref/fate/ts-opus-demux > > > > checking file tests/ref/fate/ts-small-demux > > > > patch unexpectedly ends in middle of line > > > > Hunk #1 FAILED at 145. > > > > 1 out of 1 hunk FAILED > > > > > > > > you can just try to download it from the web archieve and > > > > try for yourself its broken before my mail stuff ever sees it > > > > and that is not inline > > > > Neither your case 1. nor 2. explain this and this is a bug > > > > on the server somewhere, i dont remember where but i think i > > > > knew it previosuly what caused this > > > > something along the postfix - mailman chain probably > > > > i also faintly remeber considering to simply bump the 998 > > > > limit up to workaround it > > > > maybe anton or someone else remembers more details > > > > I sadly dont have enough time ATM to really re-investigate this > > > > > > I had a bit more time to look into this > > > > > > this issue may be unrelated to the 998 line limit, the patch on this mail > > > is simply corrupted > > > no matter if i take it from the received mail or the mailman archive > > > > > > patch --dry-run -p1 <~/v3-0001-fftools-ffprobe-print-size-of-attachment- > > > streams-.patch > > > ... > > > checking file tests/ref/fate/ts-small-demux > > > patch unexpectedly ends in middle of line > > > Hunk #1 FAILED at 145. > > > 1 out of 1 hunk FAILED > > > > > > but with -F9 > > > patch --dry-run -p1 -F9 <~/v3-0001-fftools-ffprobe-print-size-of- > attachment- > > > streams-.patch > > > checking file tests/ref/fate/ts-small-demux > > > patch unexpectedly ends in middle of line > > > Hunk #1 succeeded at 145 with fuzz 3. > > > > > > This 2nd case is likely how patchwork could apply the patch > > > > > > the corruption is a missing crlf, if i add it by hand it works without - > F9 > > > > > > if i apply it locally and rebuild the patch with format-patch > > > > > > git format-patch -1 > > > git checkout HEAD^ > > > patch --dry-run -p1 <0001-Try.patch > > > it works fine > > > > > > That’s a really tricky case, because v2 of the patch (sent inline) had > > in fact incorrect line breaks (see screenshot). > > > > Then I sent the patch as an attachment (v3) and that in turn had the effect > that > > the last line is ending without a line break. > > > > Finally I sent the whole patch as a zipped attachment - which worked (of > course), > > and the patch you created locally works as well (not surprising). > > > > But there are still two problems: > > > > > 1. Patches sent to the ML as inline get long lines truncated > > This should not be surprising, the SMTP RFC recommands this truncation > maybe this could be avoided if either mailman or postfix encode the message > as base64 either always or conditional on long lines > if someone who knows how to do this reads this, please explain. But keep in > mind maintaining code changes in mailman is something i want to avoid so > future security updates stay easy > Also i assume that inline mail wasnt base64 when it was received, i didnt > check, if it already was then i guess that wouldnt help > The alternative is to make postfix not do this truncation and ignore the RFC > that is easy. But do we want that ? (again i assume here it was postfix > which did this truncation i did not confirm this) > > > > 2. Patches sent as attachment are missing a final line break > > > > for 1., I'm sure it's a universal problem for everybody. > > > for 2., I'm wondering whether it's just my E-Mail client which removes that > last > > line break when sending or whether that happens somewhere else... > > as i apply alot of patches and this isnt normally happening the question > arrises > what was different here. It was a patch attached by you.
I didn't attach it. I ran 'git format-patch' with the --attach parameter. The result was a message/patch where the commit is included as an attachment. But now I did another test: I installed Thunderbird and opened the generated e-mail locally: the trailing LF was preserved. Not so with Outlook: it truncates the attachment when saving (and probably when sending), so the final LF gets dropped. Then I changed the line endings of the generated patch from LF to CRLF, opened it in Outlook, saved the attachment -> this time the final line break was preserved. OK, culprit found, not yet a solution. Thanks for helping me analyze this, softworkz _______________________________________________ ffmpeg-devel mailing list ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org https://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-devel To unsubscribe, visit link above, or email ffmpeg-devel-requ...@ffmpeg.org with subject "unsubscribe".
