On Sat, 24 Oct, 2015 at 21:37:57 GMT, Michael Bradshaw wrote:
> Crap, you're right. Before I started this I checked if Ubuntu had openjpeg2
> and they do[1] but it turns out it's really just openjpeg 1.3 (if anyone
> knows why they made a separate package named libopenjpeg2 when it's really
> openj
On Saturday, 24 October 2015 at 18:59, Carl Eugen Hoyos wrote:
> Michael Bradshaw gmail.com> writes:
>
> > tl;dr: I've got a patch that updates OpenJPEG to 2.0/2.1.
> > Currently, I've opted to drop OpenJPEG 1.5. Should I
> > proceed with preparing this patch for submission, or
> > should I al
On Sat, Oct 24, 2015 at 11:28 AM, Timothy Gu wrote:
> On Sat, Oct 24, 2015 at 11:03 AM James Almer wrote:
>
> > Gentoo and Debian both seem to ship it. Arch does as well but on their
> > Community repository (ffmpeg adopting it may be incentive enough for them
> > to move it to Extra).
> >
> In
On Sat, Oct 24, 2015 at 11:11 AM, Carl Eugen Hoyos wrote:
> James Almer gmail.com> writes:
>
> > Why does configure even check for 2.x if the actual
> > lavc wrappers don't currently support it?
>
> It is possible to use openjpeg2 with current
> FFmpeg (I use it for testing) but it is
> everythi
Le tridi 3 brumaire, an CCXXIV, James Almer a écrit :
> No idea about other distros, but in any case, if there's any that doesn't
> ship it then we should keep supporting it for a while, even if it means
> adding some ugly macros.
Depending on the ugliness of the macros, maybe duplicating the file
On Sat, Oct 24, 2015 at 11:03 AM James Almer wrote:
> Gentoo and Debian both seem to ship it. Arch does as well but on their
> Community repository (ffmpeg adopting it may be incentive enough for them
> to move it to Extra).
>
In fact, at least two of the reverse dependencies (out of 8, not count
James Almer gmail.com> writes:
> Why does configure even check for 2.x if the actual
> lavc wrappers don't currently support it?
It is possible to use openjpeg2 with current
FFmpeg (I use it for testing) but it is
everything but user-friendly.
Carl Eugen
On 10/24/2015 1:03 PM, Michael Bradshaw wrote:
> tl;dr: I've got a patch that updates OpenJPEG to 2.0/2.1. Currently, I've
> opted to drop OpenJPEG 1.5. Should I proceed with preparing this patch for
> submission, or should I alter it to keep 1.5 support?
>
>
>
> The OpenJPEG API went throug
On Sat, Oct 24, 2015 at 1:24 PM, Nicolas George wrote:
> Le tridi 3 brumaire, an CCXXIV, Ganesh Ajjanagadde a écrit :
>> I did not say it is not present, just that more packages rely on
>> openjpeg instead of openjpeg2.
>
> Ok. But having it available is enough, we do not really care how many othe
Le tridi 3 brumaire, an CCXXIV, Ganesh Ajjanagadde a écrit :
> I did not say it is not present, just that more packages rely on
> openjpeg instead of openjpeg2.
Ok. But having it available is enough, we do not really care how many other
programs use it, only that Michael, the maintainer for this p
On 24.10.2015 18:59, Carl Eugen Hoyos wrote:
> Michael Bradshaw gmail.com> writes:
>
>> tl;dr: I've got a patch that updates OpenJPEG to 2.0/2.1.
>> Currently, I've opted to drop OpenJPEG 1.5. Should I
>> proceed with preparing this patch for submission, or
>> should I alter it to keep 1.5 sup
On Sat, Oct 24, 2015 at 1:09 PM, Nicolas George wrote:
> Le tridi 3 brumaire, an CCXXIV, Ganesh Ajjanagadde a écrit :
>> Definitely not. Even Arch Linux, generally an early adopter, does not
>> use openjpeg2, but instead openjpeg for most things.
>
> https://www.archlinux.org/packages/community/x8
Le tridi 3 brumaire, an CCXXIV, Ganesh Ajjanagadde a écrit :
> Definitely not. Even Arch Linux, generally an early adopter, does not
> use openjpeg2, but instead openjpeg for most things.
https://www.archlinux.org/packages/community/x86_64/openjpeg2/
Are you sure of your statement?
Regards,
--
On Sat, Oct 24, 2015 at 09:03:43AM -0700, Michael Bradshaw wrote:
> tl;dr: I've got a patch that updates OpenJPEG to 2.0/2.1. Currently, I've
> opted to drop OpenJPEG 1.5. Should I proceed with preparing this patch for
> submission, or should I alter it to keep 1.5 support?
>
>
>
> The OpenJ
On Sat, Oct 24, 2015 at 12:59 PM, Carl Eugen Hoyos wrote:
> Michael Bradshaw gmail.com> writes:
>
>> tl;dr: I've got a patch that updates OpenJPEG to 2.0/2.1.
>> Currently, I've opted to drop OpenJPEG 1.5. Should I
>> proceed with preparing this patch for submission, or
>> should I alter it to ke
Michael Bradshaw gmail.com> writes:
> tl;dr: I've got a patch that updates OpenJPEG to 2.0/2.1.
> Currently, I've opted to drop OpenJPEG 1.5. Should I
> proceed with preparing this patch for submission, or
> should I alter it to keep 1.5 support?
Do distributions support (contain) 2.x?
Carl
tl;dr: I've got a patch that updates OpenJPEG to 2.0/2.1. Currently, I've
opted to drop OpenJPEG 1.5. Should I proceed with preparing this patch for
submission, or should I alter it to keep 1.5 support?
The OpenJPEG API went through a bit of an overhaul in the 1.x to 2.x
transition. This mea
17 matches
Mail list logo