Anton Khirnov (12023-12-13): > Honestly I don't see how this could be done in ffmpeg CLI without > disgusting hacks,
As I said: do not expect it to be fixed. Or we could revert the whole half-baked series. > but before that the question is: why is there an SDL > "muxer" and why would anyone want to use it in ffmpeg CLI? What actual > use cases does it serve that cannot be better handled otherwise? No, not “before that”. You have no authority to demand an answer to that question before helping fixing the feature you broke. That feature was added. That means its usefulness was obvious to the person who spent efforts implementing it, and to the persons who discussed it at the time and helped it happen. Its usefulness is also useful to the person who is trying to fix it right now. The fact that the usefulness is not evident to YOU is a failure of your imagination, not a characteristic of the feature. If you are curious, you can ask, POLITELY, that people tell you what they use it for. But despite what your behavior seems to imply, you are not FFmpeg's dictator, you cannot demand people convince YOU to keep a feature or decide to remove or break it. -- Nicolas George _______________________________________________ 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".
