On Tue, 1 Sep 2015 13:03:44 -0500
shen long wrote:
> Take it easy man, I'm just stating facts and similing while I type.
> And we're talking about the future development. I love anarchy and
> proper forks, libav is not one of them. I don't mind being banned for
> saying this though.
the ml admin
Take it easy man, I'm just stating facts and similing while I type.
And we're talking about the future development. I love anarchy and
proper forks, libav is not one of them. I don't mind being banned for
saying this though.
Maybe we all should blame Debian instead, the grandmother of distros
has
On Tue, Sep 1, 2015 at 9:38 AM, shen long wrote:
> I'm sorry to bother you, but that's not how I see it. In fact this is
> the output of the fffmpeg binary I was using for about a year and a
> half.
>
> --
> # ffmpeg
> ffmpeg version 0.8.6-4:0.8.6-0ubuntu0.12.04.1, Copyright (c) 2000-2013
I'm sorry to bother you, but that's not how I see it. In fact this is
the output of the fffmpeg binary I was using for about a year and a
half.
--
# ffmpeg
ffmpeg version 0.8.6-4:0.8.6-0ubuntu0.12.04.1, Copyright (c) 2000-2013
the Libav developers
built on Apr 2 2013 17:00:59 with gcc 4
On Tue, 1 Sep 2015 10:11:14 -0500
shen long wrote:
> This discussion again hehe. I'm just a user and I don't think a
> reunification is possible, I was reading the gentoo forums and it
If you think that, keep it to yourself.
What the hell do you think we're trying to do? The split development i
On Tue, Sep 1, 2015 at 8:11 AM, shen long wrote:
> This discussion again hehe. I'm just a user and I don't think a
> reunification is possible, I was reading the gentoo forums and it
> became a flame war between users, most of them bashing Libav. Though I
> like the name "libav" better.
>
> https:
This discussion again hehe. I'm just a user and I don't think a
reunification is possible, I was reading the gentoo forums and it
became a flame war between users, most of them bashing Libav. Though I
like the name "libav" better.
https://forums.gentoo.org/viewtopic-t-1010096.html
The way Libav s
On Tue, 1 Sep 2015 07:50:15 + (UTC)
Carl Eugen Hoyos wrote:
> wm4 googlemail.com> writes:
>
> > Oh yes, politically Libav wasn't successful.
>
> Just to make sure I don't misunderstand you:
Oh come on, you misunderstand intentionally anyway.
Or does Hanlon's razor come into effect?
I re
wm4 googlemail.com> writes:
> Oh yes, politically Libav wasn't successful.
Just to make sure I don't misunderstand you:
Gentoo and Debian did not switch from avconv
to FFmpeg for technical reasons, but only for
political reasons?
And, consequently, the changes from FFmpeg to
avconv were purel
Le quartidi 14 fructidor, an CCXXIII, Ronald S. Bultje a écrit :
> We're about to add FF_QSCALE_TYPE_MPEG1 to libavutil, and it's part of our
> intra-library ABI so we can't change it unless we bump majors, even though
> it's in internal.h.
I mostly agree to the general stance of this discussion a
wm4 googlemail.com> writes:
> Or maybe you just don't know better.
Certainly true for both of us...
Carl Eugen
___
ffmpeg-devel mailing list
ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org
http://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-devel
On 8/31/15, wm4 wrote:
> On Mon, 31 Aug 2015 11:49:19 + (UTC)
> Carl Eugen Hoyos wrote:
>
>> Ronald S. Bultje gmail.com> writes:
>>
>> [...]
>>
>> If this were all true, why don't you fork FFmpeg
>> and show us how it's done better?
>
> Don't even go there.
>
>> Seriously: No matter which fa
On Mon, 31 Aug 2015 13:02:57 + (UTC)
Carl Eugen Hoyos wrote:
> Ronald S. Bultje gmail.com> writes:
>
> > The academic argument for clean code is that it
> > speeds up development.
>
> But isn't the deeper issue that this wasn't true
> for FFmpeg five years ago and still isn't?
> (Or in o
On Mon, 31 Aug 2015 11:49:19 + (UTC)
Carl Eugen Hoyos wrote:
> Ronald S. Bultje gmail.com> writes:
>
> [...]
>
> If this were all true, why don't you fork FFmpeg
> and show us how it's done better?
Don't even go there.
> Seriously: No matter which fair I visit, the users
> always tell
Ronald S. Bultje gmail.com> writes:
> The academic argument for clean code is that it
> speeds up development.
But isn't the deeper issue that this wasn't true
for FFmpeg five years ago and still isn't?
(Or in other words: That this was always an
"academic" argument...)
Maybe because you did
Hi,
On Mon, Aug 31, 2015 at 8:40 AM, Carl Eugen Hoyos wrote:
> Ronald S. Bultje gmail.com> writes:
> > > I really don't understand why we don't spend
> > > the time fixing real (user-reported) issues
> > > instead of discussing how "clean" an api can
> > > be...
> >
> > Because the two are not
Ronald S. Bultje gmail.com> writes:
> > If this were all true, why don't you fork FFmpeg
> > and show us how it's done better?
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductio_ad_absurdum
Sorry, I thought you would understand the joke (and
that this was no argument) without any tags.
(Particularly
Hi,
On Mon, Aug 31, 2015 at 7:49 AM, Carl Eugen Hoyos wrote:
> Ronald S. Bultje gmail.com> writes:
>
> [...]
>
> If this were all true, why don't you fork FFmpeg
> and show us how it's done better?
>
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductio_ad_absurdum
Seriously: No matter which fair I visit, t
On 8/31/15, Carl Eugen Hoyos wrote:
> Ronald S. Bultje gmail.com> writes:
>
> [...]
>
> If this were all true, why don't you fork FFmpeg
> and show us how it's done better?
>
> Seriously: No matter which fair I visit, the users
> always tell the same story. They liked avconv
> because it promised
Ronald S. Bultje gmail.com> writes:
[...]
If this were all true, why don't you fork FFmpeg
and show us how it's done better?
Seriously: No matter which fair I visit, the users
always tell the same story. They liked avconv
because it promised so many things that could be
improved in FFmpeg a
On Mon, 31 Aug 2015 07:11:38 -0400
"Ronald S. Bultje" wrote:
> Hi Michael,
>
> On Sun, Aug 30, 2015 at 10:02 PM, Michael Niedermayer <
> mich...@niedermayer.cc> wrote:
>
> > On Sun, Aug 30, 2015 at 08:53:37PM -0400, Ronald S. Bultje wrote:
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > On Sat, Aug 29, 2015 at 10:23 PM,
Hi Michael,
On Sun, Aug 30, 2015 at 10:02 PM, Michael Niedermayer <
mich...@niedermayer.cc> wrote:
> On Sun, Aug 30, 2015 at 08:53:37PM -0400, Ronald S. Bultje wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > On Sat, Aug 29, 2015 at 10:23 PM, Michael Niedermayer
> > wrote:
> >
> > > From: Michael Niedermayer
> > >
> > >
On Sun, Aug 30, 2015 at 08:53:37PM -0400, Ronald S. Bultje wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Sat, Aug 29, 2015 at 10:23 PM, Michael Niedermayer
> wrote:
>
> > From: Michael Niedermayer
> >
> > This is needed for vf_mcfps, no codec related structs are part of the
> > public interface
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Mi
Hi,
On Sat, Aug 29, 2015 at 10:23 PM, Michael Niedermayer
wrote:
> From: Michael Niedermayer
>
> This is needed for vf_mcfps, no codec related structs are part of the
> public interface
>
> Signed-off-by: Michael Niedermayer
> ---
> libavcodec/Makefile |2 +-
> libavcodec/avme.c |
From: Michael Niedermayer
This is needed for vf_mcfps, no codec related structs are part of the
public interface
Signed-off-by: Michael Niedermayer
---
libavcodec/Makefile |2 +-
libavcodec/avme.c | 138 +
libavcodec/avme.h | 30
25 matches
Mail list logo
