Your message dated Sun, 06 Feb 2011 09:33:17 +
with message-id
and subject line Bug#559712: fixed in ffmpeg 4:0.6.1-3
has caused the Debian Bug report #559712,
regarding new ffmpeg snapshot would add support for important codecs (e.g.
wmapro)
to be marked as done.
This means that you claim
Your message dated Mon, 24 May 2010 10:48:34 +
with message-id
and subject line Bug#559712: fixed in ffmpeg 4:0.6~svn20100505-1
has caused the Debian Bug report #559712,
regarding new ffmpeg snapshot would add support for important codecs (e.g.
wmapro)
to be marked as done.
This means that
On Do, Jan 28, 2010 at 10:41:10 (CET), Fabian Greffrath wrote:
> Am 26.01.2010 18:19, schrieb Reinhard Tartler:
>>> For people from the outside, who have a look at the package, however it
>>> will look somehow insane. I think a short comment (just the sentence I
>>> quoted from your previous mail
Am 26.01.2010 18:19, schrieb Reinhard Tartler:
For people from the outside, who have a look at the package, however it
will look somehow insane. I think a short comment (just the sentence I
quoted from your previous mail above) would be enough to convince
everyone, I guess.
please implement this
On Di, Jan 26, 2010 at 16:28:00 (CET), Fabian Greffrath wrote:
>> This could be a lintian bug, the whole situation maybe needs some more
>> thought: we generate the shlibs file twice: first time for the internal
>> dependencies, and then we regenerate them for inclusion in the
>> package. The poin
Am 26.01.2010 16:16, schrieb Reinhard Tartler:
This patch applies perfectly to upstream trunk/. Do you want to submit
it yourself? If not, I'll forward it.
I am not subscribed at upstream's lists and are thus rather unknown
there. Would you please...? ;)
--
Dipl.-Phys. Fabian Greffrath
Ruh
Am 26.01.2010 15:46, schrieb Reinhard Tartler:
would be great, but symbol files do not allow the same flexibilty as a
regular shlib file: We cannot implement alternative dependencies that
are required for the ffmpeg-extra with symbol files.
Ah yes, I forgot.
Which ones? can you compile a list
On Di, Jan 26, 2010 at 15:31:14 (CET), Fabian Greffrath wrote:
> Am 26.01.2010 15:23, schrieb Fabian Greffrath:
>> - The libraries contain some typos, should we fix them?
>
> I tried to leave the interface untouched.
This patch applies perfectly to upstream trunk/. Do you want to submit
it yourse
On Di, Jan 26, 2010 at 15:23:32 (CET), Fabian Greffrath wrote:
> Am 26.01.2010 13:50, schrieb Reinhard Tartler:
>> This would mean that we would need to redistribute the libavcodec
>> package under GPLv3. I guess this causes problems with packages with
>> incompatible licenses like GPLv2 (only) an
Am 26.01.2010 15:23, schrieb Fabian Greffrath:
- The libraries contain some typos, should we fix them?
I tried to leave the interface untouched.
--
Dipl.-Phys. Fabian Greffrath
Ruhr-Universität Bochum
Lehrstuhl für Energieanlagen und Energieprozesstechnik (LEAT)
Universitätsstr. 150, IB 3/13
Am 26.01.2010 13:50, schrieb Reinhard Tartler:
This would mean that we would need to redistribute the libavcodec
package under GPLv3. I guess this causes problems with packages with
incompatible licenses like GPLv2 (only) and similar.
Do you know of an GPL2-only application that links against f
On Di, Jan 26, 2010 at 13:35:17 (CET), Fabian Greffrath wrote:
> Am 25.01.2010 16:19, schrieb Reinhard Tartler:
>> Okay, I've now pushed my branch, it builds fine at least on my
>> laptop. Feel free to testbuild and comment on it.
>
> It's still building but looks like it works fine. It should be
Am 25.01.2010 16:19, schrieb Reinhard Tartler:
Okay, I've now pushed my branch, it builds fine at least on my
laptop. Feel free to testbuild and comment on it.
It's still building but looks like it works fine. It should be built
against the opencore-amr[nw]b packages on Debian, though.
If i
On Di, Jan 26, 2010 at 10:55:43 (CET), Fabian Greffrath wrote:
> Am 25.01.2010 16:19, schrieb Reinhard Tartler:
>> Okay, I've now pushed my branch, it builds fine at least on my
>> laptop. Feel free to testbuild and comment on it.
>
> Here it dies with:
>
> fatal: ambiguous argument
> refs/heads/p
Am 25.01.2010 16:19, schrieb Reinhard Tartler:
Okay, I've now pushed my branch, it builds fine at least on my
laptop. Feel free to testbuild and comment on it.
Here it dies with:
fatal: ambiguous argument
'refs/heads/pristine-tar:ffmpeg_0.6~~svn20100124.orig.tar.gz.delta':
unknown revision o
On Mo, Jan 25, 2010 at 12:38:07 (CET), Reinhard Tartler wrote:
>> Same here. I've become a bit less active recently, but if there's
>> something I can do to help and/or test, I'm of course there!
>
> Thanks. Just keep an eye on the 'master.snapshot' branch as soon as I
> push my commits there. I h
Am 25.01.2010 12:38, schrieb Reinhard Tartler:
Why should we? This would only make sense if we would want to make these
packages co-installable with the existing packages. I don't think this
is worth the efford.
This was misunderstanding, sorry, I placed my "+1" wrongly. I am not
for renaming
t;0.6" already?
>> Also, shouldn't the package be named ffmpeg-snapshot, ffmpeg-trunk, or
>> something
>> similar?
>
> +1
Why should we? This would only make sense if we would want to make these
packages co-installable with the existing packages. I don't thi
Am 24.01.2010 20:43, schrieb Andres Mejia:
Wouldn't it make more sense to continue with a version number "0.5+svn"?
Not that it really matters to me, I'm just curious as to why "0.6" already?
Also, shouldn't the package be named ffmpeg-snapshot, ffmpeg-tru
;
>> I propose to start a new branch 'master.snapshot' and upload it to
>> experimental with a version number of e.g. ffmpeg_0.6~~svn20100123-1 or
>> something.
>
> Wouldn't it make more sense to continue with a version number
> "0.5+svn"?
> Not
h a version number of e.g. ffmpeg_0.6~~svn20100123-1 or
> something.
Wouldn't it make more sense to continue with a version number "0.5+svn"?
Not that it really matters to me, I'm just curious as to why "0.6" already?
Also, shouldn't the package be named ffmp
t from an
> > early January ffmpeg snapshot to the ffmpeg in sid (wma and wmapro
> > are intertwined, so it was easier just to update both together).
>
> Thanks for your work. Can you please state the exact revision that
> you have used? I'd like to check the changes you did co
On Sa, Jan 23, 2010 at 19:43:41 (CET), Christopher Martin wrote:
> Hello,
>
> Attached is a patch (lacking only a changelog entry and a line in
> debian/patch/series) that backports wma and wmapro support from an
> early January ffmpeg snapshot to the ffmpeg in sid (wma
Picking up an old thread from October,
On Do, Okt 15, 2009 at 21:28:03 (CEST), Loïc Minier wrote:
> Perhaps we should just go for a) and have a ffmpeg in experimental for
> Debian next. Not too handy for Ubuntu though, but we could have a PPA
> there.
Now that we have ffmpeg with symbol ver
Christopher Martin writes:
> Package: ffmpeg
> Version: 4:0.5+svn20090706-2
> Severity: wishlist
>
> Hello,
>
> With support for so many codecs added to ffmpeg recently, I was
> wondering whether the upload of a new snapshot was planned for the near
> future. In particular, I'm interested in wm
Package: ffmpeg
Version: 4:0.5+svn20090706-2
Severity: wishlist
Hello,
With support for so many codecs added to ffmpeg recently, I was
wondering whether the upload of a new snapshot was planned for the near
future. In particular, I'm interested in wmapro support, which I see
was added recently
26 matches
Mail list logo
