Re: UPDATE: libvpx 1.2.0
On 05/12/13 11:00 PM, Brad Smith wrote:
Here is an update to libvpx 1.2.0.
OK?
ping.
Index: Makefile
===
RCS file: /home/cvs/ports/multimedia/libvpx/Makefile,v
retrieving revision 1.12
diff -u -p -r1.12 Makefile
--- Makefile7 Aug 2013 21:32:15 - 1.12
+++ Makefile6 Dec 2013 02:54:49 -
@@ -2,15 +2,14 @@
COMMENT= Google VP8 video codec
-V= 1.1.0
+V= 1.2.0
DISTNAME= libvpx-v${V}
PKGNAME= libvpx-${V}
-REVISION= 0
CATEGORIES= multimedia
MASTER_SITES= https://webm.googlecode.com/files/
EXTRACT_SUFX= .tar.bz2
-SHARED_LIBS= vpx 4.0
+SHARED_LIBS= vpx 4.1
HOMEPAGE= http://www.webmproject.org/
@@ -35,7 +34,8 @@ MAKE_FLAGS= LIBVPX_VERSION=${LIBvpx_VERS
USE_GMAKE=Yes
CONFIGURE_STYLE= simple
CONFIGURE_ARGS+=--prefix=${PREFIX} \
- --disable-optimizations
+ --disable-optimizations \
+ --disable-unit-tests
CONFIGURE_ENV=LD=${CC}
NO_TEST= Yes
Index: distinfo
===
RCS file: /home/cvs/ports/multimedia/libvpx/distinfo,v
retrieving revision 1.5
diff -u -p -r1.5 distinfo
--- distinfo22 May 2012 18:22:50 - 1.5
+++ distinfo6 Dec 2013 02:38:23 -
@@ -1,5 +1,2 @@
-MD5 (libvpx-v1.1.0.tar.bz2) = euFjrDGWx57C8JBCgAeKRQ==
-RMD160 (libvpx-v1.1.0.tar.bz2) = b0YsFCGlGvd9NAHqTB6vDb6vR5E=
-SHA1 (libvpx-v1.1.0.tar.bz2) = NWr193DFDNAhxghjID2PMBZPYCE=
-SHA256 (libvpx-v1.1.0.tar.bz2) = nOB0z0s7zZpJ/5PgVIW3HCc7/DaFowXlWg5/pRvrcsU=
-SIZE (libvpx-v1.1.0.tar.bz2) = 1653485
+SHA256 (libvpx-v1.2.0.tar.bz2) = XvDGULLapiCF64EFp6QnPz6YfbU8Xsl/1R0bZRHlqgY=
+SIZE (libvpx-v1.2.0.tar.bz2) = 1714121
Index: patches/patch-build_make_Makefile
===
RCS file: /home/cvs/ports/multimedia/libvpx/patches/patch-build_make_Makefile,v
retrieving revision 1.4
diff -u -p -r1.4 patch-build_make_Makefile
--- patches/patch-build_make_Makefile 28 Aug 2012 13:04:01 - 1.4
+++ patches/patch-build_make_Makefile 6 Dec 2013 02:44:18 -
@@ -1,7 +1,7 @@
$OpenBSD: patch-build_make_Makefile,v 1.4 2012/08/28 13:04:01 fgsch Exp $
build/make/Makefile.orig Fri Jan 27 13:36:39 2012
-+++ build/make/MakefileSun Jan 29 21:11:03 2012
-@@ -247,8 +247,7 @@ define so_template
+--- build/make/Makefile.orig Mon Oct 14 14:16:36 2013
build/make/MakefileThu Dec 5 21:38:33 2013
+@@ -251,8 +251,7 @@ define so_template
# This needs further abstraction for dealing with non-GNU linkers.
$(1):
$(if $(quiet),@echo [LD] $$@)
@@ -11,7 +11,7 @@ $OpenBSD: patch-build_make_Makefile,v 1.
-Wl,--version-script,$$(SO_VERSION_SCRIPT) -o $$@ \
$$(filter %.o,$$?) $$(extralibs)
endef
-@@ -316,7 +315,7 @@ LIBS=$(call enabled,LIBS)
+@@ -320,7 +319,7 @@ LIBS=$(call enabled,LIBS)
.libs: $(LIBS)
@touch $@
$(foreach lib,$(filter %_g.a,$(LIBS)),$(eval $(call
archive_template,$(lib
Index: patches/patch-build_make_gen_asm_deps_sh
===
RCS file:
/home/cvs/ports/multimedia/libvpx/patches/patch-build_make_gen_asm_deps_sh,v
retrieving revision 1.3
diff -u -p -r1.3 patch-build_make_gen_asm_deps_sh
--- patches/patch-build_make_gen_asm_deps_sh22 May 2012 18:22:50 -
1.3
+++ patches/patch-build_make_gen_asm_deps_sh6 Dec 2013 01:37:14 -
@@ -7,12 +7,3 @@ $OpenBSD: patch-build_make_gen_asm_deps_
##
## Copyright (c) 2010 The WebM project authors. All Rights Reserved.
##
-@@ -42,7 +42,7 @@ done
-
- [ -n $srcfile ] || show_help
- sfx=${sfx:-asm}
--includes=$(LC_ALL=C egrep -i include +\?+[a-z0-9_/]+\.${sfx} $srcfile |
-+includes=$(LC_ALL=C egrep -i include +\*[a-z0-9_/]+\.${sfx} $srcfile |
-perl -p -e s;.*?([a-z0-9_/]+.${sfx}).*;\1;)
- # restore editor state
- for inc in ${includes}; do
Index: patches/patch-configure
===
RCS file: /home/cvs/ports/multimedia/libvpx/patches/patch-configure,v
retrieving revision 1.7
diff -u -p -r1.7 patch-configure
--- patches/patch-configure 22 May 2012 18:22:50 - 1.7
+++ patches/patch-configure 6 Dec 2013 02:44:19 -
@@ -1,13 +1,13 @@
$OpenBSD: patch-configure,v 1.7 2012/05/22 18:22:50 ajacoutot Exp $
configure.orig Tue May 8 19:14:00 2012
-+++ configure Wed May 16 17:07:35 2012
+--- configure.orig Mon Oct 14 14:16:36 2013
configure Thu Dec 5 21:42:57 2013
@@ -1,4 +1,4 @@
-#!/bin/bash
+#!${BASH}
##
## configure
##
-@@ -103,6 +103,7 @@ all_platforms=${all_platforms} ppc32-linux-gcc
+@@ -104,6 +104,7 @@ all_platforms=${all_platforms} ppc32-linux-gcc
all_platforms=${all_platforms} ppc64-darwin8-gcc
all_platforms=${all_platforms} ppc64-darwin9-gcc
all_platforms=${all_platforms}
Re: UPDATE: libvpx 1.2.0
On 06/12/13 7:01 PM, Landry Breuil wrote: On Fri, Dec 06, 2013 at 03:22:23PM -0500, Brad Smith wrote: On 06/12/13 8:05 AM, Landry Breuil wrote: On Thu, Dec 05, 2013 at 11:00:42PM -0500, Brad Smith wrote: Here is an update to libvpx 1.2.0. OK? All i know is that libvpx 1.2.0 got just merged in mozilla-central, and they're already working on the upcoming 1.3.0 for vp9 support. https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=918550 https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=763495 I'll try to enable --with-system-libvpx within firefox, since now iirc it's more supported (and less patched) than before. I want to look at 1.3.0 but I have no idea how long it will take them to put out a release. 1.2.0 was tagged 11 months ago and even with me poking and prodding them on IRC and their mailing list it still took them 9 months to put out the release. Very odd behavior with these guys. So I'm looking at 1.2.0 since it is just a small number of bug fixes and we'll see how long 1.3.0 takes to be released. AFAIK 1.2.0 has fixes for some issues found via FF. And apparently 1.3.0 was tagged 4 days ago, since mozilla now requires it for vp9 support in what will be firefox 28 in 12 weeks. https://hg.mozilla.org/integration/mozilla-inbound/rev/1ba23d5502e1 The tagging was premature and they're still not ready for a release. -- This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by MailScanner, and is believed to be clean.
Re: UPDATE: libvpx 1.2.0
On Thu, Dec 05, 2013 at 11:00:42PM -0500, Brad Smith wrote:
Here is an update to libvpx 1.2.0.
OK?
All i know is that libvpx 1.2.0 got just merged in mozilla-central, and
they're already working on the upcoming 1.3.0 for vp9 support.
https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=918550
https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=763495
I'll try to enable --with-system-libvpx within firefox, since now iirc
it's more supported (and less patched) than before.
Landry
Index: Makefile
===
RCS file: /home/cvs/ports/multimedia/libvpx/Makefile,v
retrieving revision 1.12
diff -u -p -r1.12 Makefile
--- Makefile 7 Aug 2013 21:32:15 - 1.12
+++ Makefile 6 Dec 2013 02:54:49 -
@@ -2,15 +2,14 @@
COMMENT= Google VP8 video codec
-V= 1.1.0
+V= 1.2.0
DISTNAME=libvpx-v${V}
PKGNAME= libvpx-${V}
-REVISION=0
CATEGORIES= multimedia
MASTER_SITES=https://webm.googlecode.com/files/
EXTRACT_SUFX=.tar.bz2
-SHARED_LIBS= vpx 4.0
+SHARED_LIBS= vpx 4.1
HOMEPAGE=http://www.webmproject.org/
@@ -35,7 +34,8 @@ MAKE_FLAGS= LIBVPX_VERSION=${LIBvpx_VERS
USE_GMAKE= Yes
CONFIGURE_STYLE= simple
CONFIGURE_ARGS+=--prefix=${PREFIX} \
- --disable-optimizations
+ --disable-optimizations \
+ --disable-unit-tests
CONFIGURE_ENV= LD=${CC}
NO_TEST= Yes
Index: distinfo
===
RCS file: /home/cvs/ports/multimedia/libvpx/distinfo,v
retrieving revision 1.5
diff -u -p -r1.5 distinfo
--- distinfo 22 May 2012 18:22:50 - 1.5
+++ distinfo 6 Dec 2013 02:38:23 -
@@ -1,5 +1,2 @@
-MD5 (libvpx-v1.1.0.tar.bz2) = euFjrDGWx57C8JBCgAeKRQ==
-RMD160 (libvpx-v1.1.0.tar.bz2) = b0YsFCGlGvd9NAHqTB6vDb6vR5E=
-SHA1 (libvpx-v1.1.0.tar.bz2) = NWr193DFDNAhxghjID2PMBZPYCE=
-SHA256 (libvpx-v1.1.0.tar.bz2) = nOB0z0s7zZpJ/5PgVIW3HCc7/DaFowXlWg5/pRvrcsU=
-SIZE (libvpx-v1.1.0.tar.bz2) = 1653485
+SHA256 (libvpx-v1.2.0.tar.bz2) = XvDGULLapiCF64EFp6QnPz6YfbU8Xsl/1R0bZRHlqgY=
+SIZE (libvpx-v1.2.0.tar.bz2) = 1714121
Index: patches/patch-build_make_Makefile
===
RCS file:
/home/cvs/ports/multimedia/libvpx/patches/patch-build_make_Makefile,v
retrieving revision 1.4
diff -u -p -r1.4 patch-build_make_Makefile
--- patches/patch-build_make_Makefile 28 Aug 2012 13:04:01 - 1.4
+++ patches/patch-build_make_Makefile 6 Dec 2013 02:44:18 -
@@ -1,7 +1,7 @@
$OpenBSD: patch-build_make_Makefile,v 1.4 2012/08/28 13:04:01 fgsch Exp $
build/make/Makefile.orig Fri Jan 27 13:36:39 2012
-+++ build/make/Makefile Sun Jan 29 21:11:03 2012
-@@ -247,8 +247,7 @@ define so_template
+--- build/make/Makefile.orig Mon Oct 14 14:16:36 2013
build/make/Makefile Thu Dec 5 21:38:33 2013
+@@ -251,8 +251,7 @@ define so_template
# This needs further abstraction for dealing with non-GNU linkers.
$(1):
$(if $(quiet),@echo [LD] $$@)
@@ -11,7 +11,7 @@ $OpenBSD: patch-build_make_Makefile,v 1.
-Wl,--version-script,$$(SO_VERSION_SCRIPT) -o $$@ \
$$(filter %.o,$$?) $$(extralibs)
endef
-@@ -316,7 +315,7 @@ LIBS=$(call enabled,LIBS)
+@@ -320,7 +319,7 @@ LIBS=$(call enabled,LIBS)
.libs: $(LIBS)
@touch $@
$(foreach lib,$(filter %_g.a,$(LIBS)),$(eval $(call
archive_template,$(lib
Index: patches/patch-build_make_gen_asm_deps_sh
===
RCS file:
/home/cvs/ports/multimedia/libvpx/patches/patch-build_make_gen_asm_deps_sh,v
retrieving revision 1.3
diff -u -p -r1.3 patch-build_make_gen_asm_deps_sh
--- patches/patch-build_make_gen_asm_deps_sh 22 May 2012 18:22:50 -
1.3
+++ patches/patch-build_make_gen_asm_deps_sh 6 Dec 2013 01:37:14 -
@@ -7,12 +7,3 @@ $OpenBSD: patch-build_make_gen_asm_deps_
##
## Copyright (c) 2010 The WebM project authors. All Rights Reserved.
##
-@@ -42,7 +42,7 @@ done
-
- [ -n $srcfile ] || show_help
- sfx=${sfx:-asm}
--includes=$(LC_ALL=C egrep -i include +\?+[a-z0-9_/]+\.${sfx} $srcfile |
-+includes=$(LC_ALL=C egrep -i include +\*[a-z0-9_/]+\.${sfx} $srcfile |
-perl -p -e s;.*?([a-z0-9_/]+.${sfx}).*;\1;)
- # restore editor state
- for inc in ${includes}; do
Index: patches/patch-configure
===
RCS file: /home/cvs/ports/multimedia/libvpx/patches/patch-configure,v
retrieving revision 1.7
diff -u -p -r1.7 patch-configure
--- patches/patch-configure 22 May 2012 18:22:50 - 1.7
+++ patches/patch-configure 6 Dec 2013 02:44:19 -
@@ -1,13 +1,13 @@
$OpenBSD: patch-configure,v 1.7 2012/05/22 18:22:50 ajacoutot Exp $
configure.orig Tue May 8 19:14:00 2012
-+++ configureWed May 16 17:07:35 2012
Re: UPDATE: libvpx 1.2.0
On 06/12/13 8:05 AM, Landry Breuil wrote: On Thu, Dec 05, 2013 at 11:00:42PM -0500, Brad Smith wrote: Here is an update to libvpx 1.2.0. OK? All i know is that libvpx 1.2.0 got just merged in mozilla-central, and they're already working on the upcoming 1.3.0 for vp9 support. https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=918550 https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=763495 I'll try to enable --with-system-libvpx within firefox, since now iirc it's more supported (and less patched) than before. I want to look at 1.3.0 but I have no idea how long it will take them to put out a release. 1.2.0 was tagged 11 months ago and even with me poking and prodding them on IRC and their mailing list it still took them 9 months to put out the release. Very odd behavior with these guys. So I'm looking at 1.2.0 since it is just a small number of bug fixes and we'll see how long 1.3.0 takes to be released. AFAIK 1.2.0 has fixes for some issues found via FF. -- This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by MailScanner, and is believed to be clean.
Re: UPDATE: libvpx 1.2.0
On Fri, Dec 06, 2013 at 03:22:23PM -0500, Brad Smith wrote: On 06/12/13 8:05 AM, Landry Breuil wrote: On Thu, Dec 05, 2013 at 11:00:42PM -0500, Brad Smith wrote: Here is an update to libvpx 1.2.0. OK? All i know is that libvpx 1.2.0 got just merged in mozilla-central, and they're already working on the upcoming 1.3.0 for vp9 support. https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=918550 https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=763495 I'll try to enable --with-system-libvpx within firefox, since now iirc it's more supported (and less patched) than before. I want to look at 1.3.0 but I have no idea how long it will take them to put out a release. 1.2.0 was tagged 11 months ago and even with me poking and prodding them on IRC and their mailing list it still took them 9 months to put out the release. Very odd behavior with these guys. So I'm looking at 1.2.0 since it is just a small number of bug fixes and we'll see how long 1.3.0 takes to be released. AFAIK 1.2.0 has fixes for some issues found via FF. And apparently 1.3.0 was tagged 4 days ago, since mozilla now requires it for vp9 support in what will be firefox 28 in 12 weeks. https://hg.mozilla.org/integration/mozilla-inbound/rev/1ba23d5502e1 Landry
Re: UPDATE: libvpx 1.2.0
On 06/12/13 7:01 PM, Landry Breuil wrote: On Fri, Dec 06, 2013 at 03:22:23PM -0500, Brad Smith wrote: On 06/12/13 8:05 AM, Landry Breuil wrote: On Thu, Dec 05, 2013 at 11:00:42PM -0500, Brad Smith wrote: Here is an update to libvpx 1.2.0. OK? All i know is that libvpx 1.2.0 got just merged in mozilla-central, and they're already working on the upcoming 1.3.0 for vp9 support. https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=918550 https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=763495 I'll try to enable --with-system-libvpx within firefox, since now iirc it's more supported (and less patched) than before. I want to look at 1.3.0 but I have no idea how long it will take them to put out a release. 1.2.0 was tagged 11 months ago and even with me poking and prodding them on IRC and their mailing list it still took them 9 months to put out the release. Very odd behavior with these guys. So I'm looking at 1.2.0 since it is just a small number of bug fixes and we'll see how long 1.3.0 takes to be released. AFAIK 1.2.0 has fixes for some issues found via FF. And apparently 1.3.0 was tagged 4 days ago, since mozilla now requires That's why I said what I did in the first sentence. Tagging in itself doesn't result in a release. it for vp9 support in what will be firefox 28 in 12 weeks. https://hg.mozilla.org/integration/mozilla-inbound/rev/1ba23d5502e1 -- This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by MailScanner, and is believed to be clean.
Re: UPDATE: libvpx 1.2.0
On Fri, Dec 06, 2013 at 07:03:45PM -0500, Brad Smith wrote: On 06/12/13 7:01 PM, Landry Breuil wrote: On Fri, Dec 06, 2013 at 03:22:23PM -0500, Brad Smith wrote: On 06/12/13 8:05 AM, Landry Breuil wrote: On Thu, Dec 05, 2013 at 11:00:42PM -0500, Brad Smith wrote: Here is an update to libvpx 1.2.0. OK? All i know is that libvpx 1.2.0 got just merged in mozilla-central, and they're already working on the upcoming 1.3.0 for vp9 support. https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=918550 https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=763495 I'll try to enable --with-system-libvpx within firefox, since now iirc it's more supported (and less patched) than before. I want to look at 1.3.0 but I have no idea how long it will take them to put out a release. 1.2.0 was tagged 11 months ago and even with me poking and prodding them on IRC and their mailing list it still took them 9 months to put out the release. Very odd behavior with these guys. So I'm looking at 1.2.0 since it is just a small number of bug fixes and we'll see how long 1.3.0 takes to be released. AFAIK 1.2.0 has fixes for some issues found via FF. And apparently 1.3.0 was tagged 4 days ago, since mozilla now requires That's why I said what I did in the first sentence. Tagging in itself doesn't result in a release. Sorry, but in those 'i tagged something on github' sad days, at tag _is_ a release - up to anyone to wrap up a tarball from it. Landry
Re: UPDATE: libvpx 1.2.0
On 06/12/13 7:13 PM, Landry Breuil wrote: On Fri, Dec 06, 2013 at 07:03:45PM -0500, Brad Smith wrote: On 06/12/13 7:01 PM, Landry Breuil wrote: On Fri, Dec 06, 2013 at 03:22:23PM -0500, Brad Smith wrote: On 06/12/13 8:05 AM, Landry Breuil wrote: On Thu, Dec 05, 2013 at 11:00:42PM -0500, Brad Smith wrote: Here is an update to libvpx 1.2.0. OK? All i know is that libvpx 1.2.0 got just merged in mozilla-central, and they're already working on the upcoming 1.3.0 for vp9 support. https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=918550 https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=763495 I'll try to enable --with-system-libvpx within firefox, since now iirc it's more supported (and less patched) than before. I want to look at 1.3.0 but I have no idea how long it will take them to put out a release. 1.2.0 was tagged 11 months ago and even with me poking and prodding them on IRC and their mailing list it still took them 9 months to put out the release. Very odd behavior with these guys. So I'm looking at 1.2.0 since it is just a small number of bug fixes and we'll see how long 1.3.0 takes to be released. AFAIK 1.2.0 has fixes for some issues found via FF. And apparently 1.3.0 was tagged 4 days ago, since mozilla now requires That's why I said what I did in the first sentence. Tagging in itself doesn't result in a release. Sorry, but in those 'i tagged something on github' sad days, at tag _is_ a release - up to anyone to wrap up a tarball from it. Well that's not the case here. -- This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by MailScanner, and is believed to be clean.
