Re: upcoming ffmpeg transition
Hi Andrey, On 26.01.2016 20:53, Andrey Gursky wrote: > recently I noticed a warning from vlc developers regarding the upcoming > FFmpeg 2.9 release [1]. Are you already aware of it? Yes, we're aware of that, but thanks for notifying us anyway. This will be fixed upstream in FFmpeg shortly. > I'm wondering, whether mplayer and mpv are also affected. No, they use hwaccels differently (arguably in a better way) than VLC. > Could this delay the transition to FFmpeg 2.9 until the issue will be > resolved or it is already done? This won't delay the transition to the next FFmpeg version, which by the way will probably be called 3.0. On the other hand there are still many packages in the archive incompatible with the new FFmpeg version [1], despite patches being available since three months. That might delay the transition. (Though I intend to file removal bugs for some of those unmaintained leaf packages.) Best regards, Andreas 1: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/pkgreport.cgi?users=pkg-multimedia-maintainers%40lists.alioth.debian.org;tag=ffmpeg2.9 ___ pkg-multimedia-maintainers mailing list pkg-multimedia-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pkg-multimedia-maintainers
upcoming ffmpeg transition
Hi, recently I noticed a warning from vlc developers regarding the upcoming FFmpeg 2.9 release [1]. Are you already aware of it? I'm wondering, whether mplayer and mpv are also affected. Could this delay the transition to FFmpeg 2.9 until the issue will be resolved or it is already done? Regards, Andrey [1] http://comments.gmane.org/gmane.comp.video.videolan.vlc.devel/103983 ___ pkg-multimedia-maintainers mailing list pkg-multimedia-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pkg-multimedia-maintainers
Re: upcoming ffmpeg transition
On 02.11.2015 18:58, Felipe Sateler wrote: > On 2 November 2015 at 14:40, Andreas Cadhalpun > wrote: >> On 02.11.2015 00:57, Felipe Sateler wrote: >>> On 1 November 2015 at 19:51, Andreas Cadhalpun >>> wrote: building: 30 simple changes: 61 complex changes:21 -- total: 112 >>> >>> How did you come up with those numbers? Did you actually make a patch for >>> each?? >> >> Yes, of course. That's the only way to get accurate numbers. ;) > > Excellent. That makes the transition much smoother. I've filed the bugs now (except for taoframework). [1] I'll file bug reports for the affected packages with: User: pkg-multimedia-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org Usertags: ffmpeg2.9 >>> >>> Do the required changes work already? IOW, if a patch is applied can >>> it build with ffmpeg 2.8? >> >> Yes, the only exception is, as always, taoframework with its hardcoded >> SONAMEs. > > Ugh. Feel free to ping me for NMUs if packages are not updated in time > for the transition. Thanks for the offer. Considering the number of affected packages, NMUs will likely be necessary. Best regards, Andreas 1: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/pkgreport.cgi?users=pkg-multimedia-maintainers%40lists.alioth.debian.org;tag=ffmpeg2.9 ___ pkg-multimedia-maintainers mailing list pkg-multimedia-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pkg-multimedia-maintainers
Re: upcoming ffmpeg transition
On 2 November 2015 at 14:40, Andreas Cadhalpun wrote: > On 02.11.2015 00:57, Felipe Sateler wrote: >> On 1 November 2015 at 19:51, Andreas Cadhalpun >> wrote: >>> >>> building: 30 >>> simple changes: 61 >>> complex changes:21 >>> -- >>> total: 112 >> >> How did you come up with those numbers? Did you actually make a patch for >> each?? > > Yes, of course. That's the only way to get accurate numbers. ;) Excellent. That makes the transition much smoother. > >>> I'll file bug reports for the affected packages with: >>> User: pkg-multimedia-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org >>> Usertags: ffmpeg2.9 >> >> Do the required changes work already? IOW, if a patch is applied can >> it build with ffmpeg 2.8? > > Yes, the only exception is, as always, taoframework with its hardcoded > SONAMEs. Ugh. Feel free to ping me for NMUs if packages are not updated in time for the transition. -- Saludos, Felipe Sateler ___ pkg-multimedia-maintainers mailing list pkg-multimedia-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pkg-multimedia-maintainers
Re: upcoming ffmpeg transition
On 02.11.2015 00:57, Felipe Sateler wrote: > On 1 November 2015 at 19:51, Andreas Cadhalpun > wrote: >> >> building: 30 >> simple changes: 61 >> complex changes:21 >> -- >> total: 112 > > How did you come up with those numbers? Did you actually make a patch for > each?? Yes, of course. That's the only way to get accurate numbers. ;) >> I'll file bug reports for the affected packages with: >> User: pkg-multimedia-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org >> Usertags: ffmpeg2.9 > > Do the required changes work already? IOW, if a patch is applied can > it build with ffmpeg 2.8? Yes, the only exception is, as always, taoframework with its hardcoded SONAMEs. >> Additionally, there are five unrelated FTBFS bugs among the affected >> packages: >> bino: #802374 >> gazebo:#797809 >> mrpt: #803700 >> ovito: #803701 >> pjproject: #793094 >> >> It would be good if most of this was fixed, when the next ffmpeg >> version gets released. > > I'd use severity: important. When the release gets done, then the > severity is bumped to serious. I'll do it that way. Best regards, Andreas ___ pkg-multimedia-maintainers mailing list pkg-multimedia-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pkg-multimedia-maintainers
Re: upcoming ffmpeg transition
On 1 November 2015 at 19:51, Andreas Cadhalpun wrote: > Hi, > > ffmpeg upstream removed some deprecated APIs, so the next release will require > a transition. A large number of reverse dependencies need source code patches. > Most of those are simple changes like renaming functions/macros, but some are > more complex: > > building: 30 > simple changes: 61 > complex changes:21 > -- > total: 112 How did you come up with those numbers? Did you actually make a patch for each?? > > I'll file bug reports for the affected packages with: > User: pkg-multimedia-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org > Usertags: ffmpeg2.9 Do the required changes work already? IOW, if a patch is applied can it build with ffmpeg 2.8? > Additionally, there are five unrelated FTBFS bugs among the affected packages: > bino: #802374 > gazebo:#797809 > mrpt: #803700 > ovito: #803701 > pjproject: #793094 > > It would be good if most of this was fixed, when the next ffmpeg > version gets released. I'd use severity: important. When the release gets done, then the severity is bumped to serious. -- Saludos, Felipe Sateler ___ pkg-multimedia-maintainers mailing list pkg-multimedia-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pkg-multimedia-maintainers
upcoming ffmpeg transition
Hi, ffmpeg upstream removed some deprecated APIs, so the next release will require a transition. A large number of reverse dependencies need source code patches. Most of those are simple changes like renaming functions/macros, but some are more complex: building: 30 simple changes: 61 complex changes:21 -- total: 112 I'll file bug reports for the affected packages with: User: pkg-multimedia-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org Usertags: ffmpeg2.9 Additionally, there are five unrelated FTBFS bugs among the affected packages: bino: #802374 gazebo:#797809 mrpt: #803700 ovito: #803701 pjproject: #793094 It would be good if most of this was fixed, when the next ffmpeg version gets released. Best regards, Andreas ___ pkg-multimedia-maintainers mailing list pkg-multimedia-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pkg-multimedia-maintainers
