uot; to be
outputted for each frame.
Signed-off-by: Jacob Siddall
---
libavformat/rtpdec_rfc4175.c | 2 +-
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/libavformat/rtpdec_rfc4175.c b/libavformat/rtpdec_rfc4175.c
index e9c62c1..ec838fe 100644
--- a/libavformat/rtpdec_rfc41
, I'm not really sure what else to do.
I've attached the plain text copy of my patch email to this email.
Let me know if there's anything else I can do to help.
Regards,
Jacob
Subject: [PATCH] avformat/rtpdec_rfc4175: Fix incorrect copy_offset calculation
From: Jacob Siddall
D
uot; to be
outputted for each frame.
Signed-off-by: Jacob Siddall
---
Changes in v2:
- Don't handle packet if the line number is less than 1
Section 12 in the VSF technical recommendation TR-03 specifies that the
video scan line numbers should start at 1.
http://www.videoservicesfor
> git seems to not like the patch:
>
> Applying: avformat/rtpdec_rfc4175: Fix incorrect copy_offset calculation
> Using index info to reconstruct a base tree...
> error: patch failed: libavformat/rtpdec_rfc4175.c:205
> error: libavformat/rtpdec_rfc4175.c: patch does not apply
> error: Did you hand
uot; to be
outputted for each frame.
Signed-off-by: Jacob Siddall
---
Changes in v2:
- Don't handle packet if the line number is less than 1
Section 12 in the VSF technical recommendation TR-03 specifies that the
video scan line numbers should start at 1.
http://www.videoservicesfor
> On Mon, Aug 05, 2019 at 06:05:29PM +0100, Kieran Kunhya wrote:
> > On Mon, 5 Aug 2019 at 17:10, Michael Niedermayer
> > wrote:
> >
> > > On Thu, Jun 27, 2019 at 06:06:22AM +, Jacob Siddall wrote:
> > > > The previous calculation code did not account
> > > Jacob, can you look into this ?
> > >
> > > should i revert until this is fixed?
> > >
> > > Thanks
> >
> > Michael, yes lets revert this commit for now and come up with a better
> > solution that can cater for both starting line number cases.
>
> ok, will revert
Michael,
My friend and
On 11/7/19, Michael Niedermayer wrote:
> I see there are multiple People working on this and others who worked
> previously on this. Can one of the people working on this code
> please review this ?
> Iam happy to apply it if its reviewed (assuming noone spots anything
> bad of course)
Just had a
