On Wed, 4 Feb 2015 09:36:06 -0600
Steven Lembark wrote:
> On Sun, 25 Jan 2015 18:43:49 +0100
> Sebastian Pipping wrote:
>
> > I got a bug report for arm64 against the test suite of uriparser.
> > If I could get a temporary arm64 shell somewhere, that could help me
> > understand the issue.
>
>
On Mon, 02 Feb 2015 00:44:20 +0100
Sebastian Pipping wrote:
> So I don't need shell access any more, at least not in this context.
If you are interested in fixing things feel free to ping me and we
can get you ssh access (assuming that an Opteron 2376 is sufficient)
prior to needing it :-)
--
On Sun, 25 Jan 2015 18:43:49 +0100
Sebastian Pipping wrote:
> I got a bug report for arm64 against the test suite of uriparser. If I
> could get a temporary arm64 shell somewhere, that could help me
> understand the issue.
I can give you an accout here; system is Opteron 2000 (i.e., ancient)
bu
> This to me is still the ideal solution (not the || deps due to the
> issues they have, but the soft default) -- why is it that we need to
> actually choose or force a default implementation in the profiles anyhow??
Because blockers resulted whenever two different packages made portage pick
two
On Wednesday 04 February 2015 09:49:02 Ian Stakenvicius wrote:
> In other words, we didn't actually have a default, we just had a means
> that portage would choose one of them if the end-user haddn't chosen
> already.
>
> This to me is still the ideal solution (not the || deps due to the
> issues
On Wed, Feb 4, 2015 at 9:49 AM, Ian Stakenvicius wrote:
>
> This to me is still the ideal solution (not the || deps due to the
> issues they have, but the soft default) -- why is it that we need to
> actually choose or force a default implementation in the profiles anyhow??
>
I think this is an o
Dnia 2015-02-04, o godz. 09:49:02
Ian Stakenvicius napisał(a):
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA256
>
> On 04/02/15 09:27 AM, Michał Górny wrote:
> > Dnia 2015-02-04, o godz. 14:41:06 Alexis Ballier
> > napisał(a):
> >
> >> On Wed, 04 Feb 2015 14:30:56 +0100 Michał Górny
> >> w
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On 04/02/15 09:27 AM, Michał Górny wrote:
> Dnia 2015-02-04, o godz. 14:41:06 Alexis Ballier
> napisał(a):
>
>> On Wed, 04 Feb 2015 14:30:56 +0100 Michał Górny
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> It wasn't only weak but quite inconsistent too. Some packages
>>> ha
Dnia 2015-02-04, o godz. 14:41:06
Alexis Ballier napisał(a):
> On Wed, 04 Feb 2015 14:30:56 +0100
> Michał Górny wrote:
> >
> > It wasn't only weak but quite inconsistent too. Some packages had
> > their own || deps, with different order.
> >
>
> this was to reflect upstreams preferences
The
On Wed, Feb 4, 2015 at 5:09 AM, Michał Górny wrote:
> Dnia 2015-02-04, o godz. 11:04:57
> "Jason A. Donenfeld" napisał(a):
>
>> I'd like to insert, early on in this thread, that we must leave personal
>> biases and associations *out* of this discussion, and instead focus on
>> technical merits an
Ulrich Mueller schrieb:
In the replies to http://forums.gentoo.org/viewtopic.php?p=7694982
several users have expressed their preference for ffmpeg.
To help finding out what users actually think, I added a poll to the
forum to ask them about their preference.
https://forums.gentoo.org/viewtop
On Wed, 04 Feb 2015 14:30:56 +0100
Michał Górny wrote:
>
> It wasn't only weak but quite inconsistent too. Some packages had
> their own || deps, with different order.
>
this was to reflect upstreams preferences
On 04/02/15 14:25, Jason A. Donenfeld wrote:
By now it should be clear to most people that everything goes smoother,
works better for the end user, and causes less breakage when *ffmpeg is the
default, not libav*.
"Works better" is a matter of perception, if I (and the few that help me
not afr
Ulrich Mueller napisał:
>> On Wed, 04 Feb 2015, Matthias Maier wrote:
>
>>> So can someone please remind me what are the technical reasons why
>we
>>> prefer libav over ffmpeg?
>
>> *ugh* Please no.
>
>> What about leaving the default (if there ever was such a default) as
>it
>> is and avoid
On Wed, 04 Feb 2015 13:57:55 +0100
Luca Barbato wrote:
> On 04/02/15 11:40, Michał Górny wrote:
> > It's easiest to look at the trackers:
> >
> > - ffmpeg-2 [1] -- 26/26 fixed,
> > - ffmpeg-2.4 [2] -- 3/3 fixed (but unsure if there won't be more),
> > - libav-9 [3] -- 55/55 fixed,
> > - libav-10
On 04/02/15 11:40, Michał Górny wrote:
It's easiest to look at the trackers:
- ffmpeg-2 [1] -- 26/26 fixed,
- ffmpeg-2.4 [2] -- 3/3 fixed (but unsure if there won't be more),
- libav-9 [3] -- 55/55 fixed,
- libav-10 [4] -- 11/25 fixed.
No offense here but in my experience, ffmpeg support in Gen
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Hi,
Whilst the default *is* still in place (and particularly after the
recent news article detailing that users should be using libav), could
we please keep commits like the following until *after* we've made an
agreed upon decision please?
http://so
> On Wed, 04 Feb 2015, Matthias Maier wrote:
>> So can someone please remind me what are the technical reasons why we
>> prefer libav over ffmpeg?
> *ugh* Please no.
> What about leaving the default (if there ever was such a default) as it
> is and avoid the otherwise imminent trainwreck?
A
> So can someone please remind me what are the technical reasons why we
> prefer libav over ffmpeg?
*ugh* Please no.
What about leaving the default (if there ever was such a default) as it
is and avoid the otherwise imminent trainwreck?
Best,
Matthias
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
On 02/04/15 03:06, Michael Haubenwallner wrote:
On 02/03/2015 08:55 PM, Anthony G. Basile wrote:
On 02/02/15 19:06, viv...@gmail.com wrote:
Il 02/02/2015 23:30, Pacho Ramos ha scritto:
El sáb, 31-01-2015 a las 16:48 -0500, Anthony G. Basile escribió:
Hi everyone,
We need to revert the follow
El mié, 04-02-2015 a las 11:40 +0100, Michał Górny escribió:
[...]
> It's easiest to look at the trackers:
>
> - ffmpeg-2 [1] -- 26/26 fixed,
> - ffmpeg-2.4 [2] -- 3/3 fixed (but unsure if there won't be more),
> - libav-9 [3] -- 55/55 fixed,
> - libav-10 [4] -- 11/25 fixed.
>
> No offense here b
Dnia 2015-02-04, o godz. 10:26:06
Alexis Ballier napisał(a):
> On Wed, 4 Feb 2015 10:12:12 +0100
> Ulrich Mueller wrote:
>
> > With the recent introduction of the libav USE flag, the Gentoo default
> > for ffmpeg vs libav is more pronounced than it was before (with libav
> > being listed first
Dnia 2015-02-04, o godz. 11:04:57
"Jason A. Donenfeld" napisał(a):
> I'd like to insert, early on in this thread, that we must leave personal
> biases and associations *out* of this discussion, and instead focus on
> technical merits and analyses only. Thus, I would *strongly encourage* that
> au
Dnia 2015-02-04, o godz. 18:01:57
Ben de Groot napisał(a):
> On 4 February 2015 at 17:55, Michał Górny wrote:
> > Dnia 2015-02-04, o godz. 17:24:03
> > Ben de Groot napisał(a):
> >
> >> From an upstream that I care about:
> >> https://github.com/mpv-player/mpv/wiki/FFmpeg-versus-Libav
> >>
> >>
I'd like to insert, early on in this thread, that we must leave personal
biases and associations *out* of this discussion, and instead focus on
technical merits and analyses only. Thus, I would *strongly encourage* that
authors of libav and ffmpeg will *refrain from joining this discussion* in
orde
On 4 February 2015 at 17:55, Michał Górny wrote:
> Dnia 2015-02-04, o godz. 17:24:03
> Ben de Groot napisał(a):
>
>> From an upstream that I care about:
>> https://github.com/mpv-player/mpv/wiki/FFmpeg-versus-Libav
>>
>> Based on that I would say we should switch back the default to ffmpeg.
>
> F
On Wed, Feb 4, 2015 at 10:55 AM, Michał Górny wrote:
>
> From what I heard, that upstream likes to change its opinion
> frequently, pretty much based on which upstream he is pissed at
> the moment. But it's just rumors.
>
This is most certainly untrue. Please stop disseminating FUD like this.
The
Dnia 2015-02-04, o godz. 17:24:03
Ben de Groot napisał(a):
> On 4 February 2015 at 17:21, Michał Górny wrote:
> > Dnia 2015-02-04, o godz. 10:12:12
> > Ulrich Mueller napisał(a):
> >
> >> With the recent introduction of the libav USE flag, the Gentoo default
> >> for ffmpeg vs libav is more pro
On Wed, Feb 4, 2015 at 10:21 AM, Michał Górny wrote:
> Dnia 2015-02-04, o godz. 10:12:12
> Ulrich Mueller napisał(a):
>
> > So can someone please remind me what are the technical reasons why we
> > prefer libav over ffmpeg?
>
> We have a developer inside
>
I think it's time to end this cronyism
On Wed, Feb 4, 2015 at 10:24 AM, Ben de Groot wrote:
>
>
> From an upstream that I care about:
> https://github.com/mpv-player/mpv/wiki/FFmpeg-versus-Libav
>
> Based on that I would say we should switch back the default to ffmpeg.
>
I can vouch for the content of that link and the expert opinion
El mié, 04-02-2015 a las 17:24 +0800, Ben de Groot escribió:
[...]
> From an upstream that I care about:
> https://github.com/mpv-player/mpv/wiki/FFmpeg-versus-Libav
>
> Based on that I would say we should switch back the default to ffmpeg.
Thanks a lot for the link
On Wed, 4 Feb 2015 10:12:12 +0100
Ulrich Mueller wrote:
> With the recent introduction of the libav USE flag, the Gentoo default
> for ffmpeg vs libav is more pronounced than it was before (with libav
> being listed first in || ( ) dependencies).
>
> In the replies to http://forums.gentoo.org/vi
Zac Medico wrote:
>
> Also, portage-2.2.16 will have support for special USE_EXPAND syntax in
> package.use
I knew from reading portage-dev ml
Actually, I am hoping that the introduction of the feature
be taken as an opportunity to document USE_EXPAND better as a whole
on some prominent places w
On 4 February 2015 at 17:21, Michał Górny wrote:
> Dnia 2015-02-04, o godz. 10:12:12
> Ulrich Mueller napisał(a):
>
>> With the recent introduction of the libav USE flag, the Gentoo default
>> for ffmpeg vs libav is more pronounced than it was before (with libav
>> being listed first in || ( ) de
Dnia 2015-02-04, o godz. 10:12:12
Ulrich Mueller napisał(a):
> With the recent introduction of the libav USE flag, the Gentoo default
> for ffmpeg vs libav is more pronounced than it was before (with libav
> being listed first in || ( ) dependencies).
>
> In the replies to http://forums.gentoo.o
With the recent introduction of the libav USE flag, the Gentoo default
for ffmpeg vs libav is more pronounced than it was before (with libav
being listed first in || ( ) dependencies).
In the replies to http://forums.gentoo.org/viewtopic.php?p=7694982
several users have expressed their preference
On 02/03/2015 08:55 PM, Anthony G. Basile wrote:
> On 02/02/15 19:06, viv...@gmail.com wrote:
>> Il 02/02/2015 23:30, Pacho Ramos ha scritto:
>>> El sáb, 31-01-2015 a las 16:48 -0500, Anthony G. Basile escribió:
Hi everyone,
We need to revert the following change to toolchain.eclass:
On 03/02/2015 20:02, Michał Górny wrote:
> Dnia 2015-02-03, o godz. 18:50:43
> "Jason A. Donenfeld" napisał(a):
>
>> If you want ffmpeg-ish features, at all, USE=ffmpeg.
>>
>> If you'd like to use the libav implementation, USE=libav. If you'd prefer
>> to use the original ffmpeg implementation, U
38 matches
Mail list logo
