On Thu, Nov 22, 2012 at 1:11 AM, Reinhard Tartler <siret...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Tue, Nov 20, 2012 at 1:12 AM, Andres Mejia <amejia...@gmail.com> wrote: >> On Mon, Nov 19, 2012 at 7:07 PM, Andres Mejia <amejia...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> Hi all, >>> >>> FYI, I uploaded a new version of XBMC. I'm notifying you all because >>> of a major change. This version of XBMC will be built and run using >>> XBMC's internal copy of FFMpeg (the 10.2 branch of FFMpeg that is). >>> Due to the number of changes done between FFMpeg and Libav >>> (particularly with libavfilter), it would have taken an enormous >>> amount of work to try and get XBMC building and running using Libav. >>> Also, I did forget to note this major change in the changelog, but I >>> did add a NEWS entry for this. Sorry about that. >>> >>> Also as an aside, I think we should discuss how to get ffmpeg back >>> into Debian again. As I said some time ago, either Libav, FFMpeg, or >>> both have to get their libraries and header paths renamed. >> >> I also want to note this now, apparently chromium has been using it's >> own internal copy of FFMpeg for some time now. Therefore, XBMC is not >> the first package where using an internal ffmpeg is being done. >> > > Are you sure that all involved developers, including chromium & xbmc > upstream as well as their packagers, would agree on the same FFmpeg > snapshot?
I don't believe anyone ever mentioned that these two projects should use the same snapshot of ffmpeg. > TBH, I'm very skeptical. And with FFmpeg releasing like crazy after > the fork, I don't see the project suitable at all for a distro > scenario such as Debian. For instance, you indicate that XBMC uses the > 0.10 branch; the latest upstream release, however, is 1.0, the release > before is 0.11. Chromium maintains it (defacto) own branch, which > admittedly is based on FFmpeg master. Therefore, tracking upstream > releases does not seem to accommodate either project. > > To conclude, I understand that xbmc is causing new challenges here, > but TBH, I think the better solution would be to investigate what's > missing in libav's libavfilter. For instance, I think you mean the > audio filter still, which has landed in libav 9. I imagine that there > is still some stuff missing, but if it is useful, I'm sure it can be > submitted libav upstream. > > -- > regards, > Reinhard I don't work on the components of xbmc that uses ffmpeg. Elupus is who you want to speak to. You can either try the xbmc-dev channels or the xbmc forums to reach out to him to see what (if anything) libav could do so xbmc could work with libav. -- ~ Andres _______________________________________________ pkg-multimedia-maintainers mailing list pkg-multimedia-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pkg-multimedia-maintainers
