On Sunday 31 August 2003 08:20, Bernhard Praschinger wrote:
> > Sounds like you're already on top of this loop thing, and will handle it?
>
> Just done, and commited to the CVS.
Mmm, cool! Now I won't have to change my scripts again. :)
/Sam
Hallo
> > > Uh. That would mean cvs access, right? Guess I'll have to wait, then. :)
> >
> > You can get it if you want ... just tell you your SF user ;)
> Didn't have any at the time. Now I do, and CVS access too. I committed the
> --max-file-frames change of lavrec a few minutes ago; I hope it w
> > I remember that I have changed that loop option. At least I applied the
> > patch from a user to have that feature.
> >
> > I trie to answer all mails about that topic in one mail.
> Might aswell. :)
Fine.
> > > Uh. That would mean cvs access, right? Guess I'll have to wait, then. :)
> >
> >
Hey Martin,
On Tue, 2003-08-26 at 11:33, Martin Samuelsson wrote:
> Does this make sense at all?
Perfect, I would have proposed the same thing. I don't see any advantage
for the current behaviour as default over the old behaviour.
I'll apply ... ehm... damn, I'm gone all week ('till monday). Ple
On Tuesday 26 August 2003 20:14, Bernhard Praschinger wrote:
> Hallo
>
> I remember that I have changed that loop option. At least I applied the
> patch from a user to have that feature.
>
> I trie to answer all mails about that topic in one mail.
Might aswell. :)
> > Uh. That would mean cvs acce
Hallo
I remember that I have changed that loop option. At least I applied the
patch from a user to have that feature.
I trie to answer all mails about that topic in one mail.
> > Perfect, I would have proposed the same thing. I don't see any advantage
> > for the current behaviour as default ov
On Tuesday 26 August 2003 12:07, Ronald Bultje wrote:
> Perfect, I would have proposed the same thing. I don't see any advantage
> for the current behaviour as default over the old behaviour.
Cool.
> I'll apply ... ehm... damn, I'm gone all week ('till monday). Please
> apply yourself or wait for
On Tue, 26 Aug 2003, Martin Samuelsson wrote:
> The man page has this to say:
>
>-l num
> Specifies the nummber of loops (default: 0 loops )
> When this option is not used the given range of images is only
> processed once. If you use this option and as
On Tuesday 26 August 2003 10:25, Ronald Bultje wrote:
> Interesting code in line 464 of jpeg2yuv.c:
>
> if (param->loop != 1)
>loops--;
>
> Somehow, I believe this is a typo and should read '-1' instead of '1'.
> Could you re-try with that change?
Could be. Just changing that line did
Hey Martin,
On Tue, 2003-08-26 at 10:11, Martin Samuelsson wrote:
[..]
Interesting code in line 464 of jpeg2yuv.c:
if (param->loop != 1)
loops--;
Somehow, I believe this is a typo and should read '-1' instead of '1'.
Could you re-try with that change?
Ronald
--
Ronald Bultje <[EM
On Tuesday 26 August 2003 08:22, Ronald Bultje wrote:
> Hey Martin,
>
> On Tue, 2003-08-26 at 01:33, Martin Samuelsson wrote:
> > With 1.6.0, I could give jpeg2yuv an absolute filename, and get the
> > expected output. With 1.6.1.90, it will go into a tight loop. Is there
> > any change I've overlo
Hey Martin,
On Tue, 2003-08-26 at 01:33, Martin Samuelsson wrote:
> With 1.6.0, I could give jpeg2yuv an absolute filename, and get the expected
> output. With 1.6.1.90, it will go into a tight loop. Is there any change I've
> overlooked?
-n 1, I suppose?
Ronald
--
Ronald Bultje <[EMAIL PROT
Hi!
On Monday 25 August 2003 15:01, Ronald Bultje wrote:
> > abandoned that course when I was asked for libquicktime-devel, and found
> > out that the libquicktime people didn't have any official rpms for
> > download. The mjpegtools project can't be blamed for that, though.
>
> If I'm correct, usi
On Monday 25 August 2003 19:55, Martin Samuelsson wrote:
> Ok, now I'm going to do some more testing.
Um. Question:
With 1.6.0, I could give jpeg2yuv an absolute filename, and get the expected
output. With 1.6.1.90, it will go into a tight loop. Is there any change I've
overlooked?
What worked
On Mon, 2003-08-25 at 10:55, Martin Samuelsson wrote:
> As I said before, I'm lazy. That's why I downloaded the source rpm and began
> rebuilding it for a clean install within the rpm framework. I abandoned that
> course when I was asked for libquicktime-devel, and found out that the
> libquick
On Monday 25 August 2003 21:01, Ronald Bultje wrote:
> If I'm correct, using a --nodeps should work. We don't specifically need
> it. I just added it so that normal people will understand that they can
> get quicktime support by this.
It probably would work just fine, but I'm not only lazy; I'm a
Hey Martin,
On Mon, 2003-08-25 at 19:55, Martin Samuelsson wrote:
> I'm lazy.
So am I, welcome to the club. :).
> As I said before, I'm lazy. That's why I downloaded the source rpm and began
> rebuilding it for a clean install within the rpm framework. I abandoned that
> course when I was aske
I'm lazy.
At last, I've downloaded 1.6.2rc1 and upgraded my old 1.6.0 installation. Good
for me.
I thought I'd share parts of the experience while I still remember it.
Installing:
As I said before, I'm lazy. That's why I downloaded the source rpm and began
rebuilding it for a clean install wi
18 matches
Mail list logo
