On Mon, 2 Feb 2015 18:08:01 +0100 Ulrich Mueller <[email protected]> wrote:
> >>>>> On Mon, 2 Feb 2015, Alexis Ballier wrote: > > > On Mon, 2 Feb 2015 17:14:22 +0100 > > Ulrich Mueller <[email protected]> wrote: > > >> Why? When you have USE="-ffmpeg", the libav flag is a "don't care" > >> which is ignored. "ffmpeg" controls the feature, "libav" chooses > >> the implementation. This is very clear from the flags' descriptions > >> and was also well explained in the (N-1) news item. > > > Would you offer me a beer each time I'll point you at some user > > doing USE='-ffmpeg libav' because he wants libav only ? :) > > "-ffmpeg libav" is a valid combination, given that "ffmpeg" can be set > per-package, whereas typically there would be only a global setting of > "libav". It is quite a similar situation to what we had with openmotif > and lesstif, where the motif flag enabled the feature, and the lesstif > flag chose the implementation. Even though I got the ffmpeg/libav flags right, the motif situation actually always confused me :/ > Or is it the name of the flag that is causing confusion? That could be > changed. I guess the flag name isn't helping indeed. The initial proposal wanted to preserve the meaning of the 'ffmpeg' useflag, breaking the symmetry between ffmpeg & libav flags. Michal proposed the 'libavcodec' flag to restore it, but IMHO this was even worse. If you happen to have an idea of a correct name for a flag that enables some of 'libavcodec, libavutil, libavformat, libswscale, libavresample, libswresample or libavdevice' support, then please shout. What I find interesting in this proposal is that ffmpeg useflag keeps its old meaning, and we have a symmetric setting for choosing the implementation. Alexis.
