-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
On 02/03/2015 02:04 PM, Michał Górny wrote:
Dnia 2015-02-02, o godz. 15:06:40 Michał Górny mgo...@gentoo.org
napisał(a):
Hi, everyone.
Just after the news item got published, user Wes mailed me with a
suggestion. While I think someone
Dnia 2015-02-02, o godz. 15:06:40
Michał Górny mgo...@gentoo.org napisał(a):
Hi, everyone.
Just after the news item got published, user Wes mailed me with
a suggestion. While I think someone mentioned it earlier
in the bikesheds over ffmpeg, I have completely forgotten about it
and now I'd
Dnia 2015-02-02, o godz. 15:06:40
Michał Górny mgo...@gentoo.org napisał(a):
The idea is that instead of having USE=libav (that's tangential to
USE=ffmpeg and confusing) to use a USE_EXPAND like FFMPEG_IMPL taking
either ffmpeg or libav. Now, why...
Ok, since this is going to be a long night,
On 02/02/2015 05:47 PM, Michał Górny wrote:
For feature flag, name is the only issue. Currently USE=ffmpeg serves
that purpose and I think changing that would have a very high cost
(and cause a lot of bikeshed), esp. if we would end up reusing the flag
for another purpose. So most likely
On Mon, 2 Feb 2015, Michał Górny wrote:
FFMPEG_IMPL feels like a natural extension of USE=ffmpeg. USE=ffmpeg
tells to use ffmpeg or a replacement, FFMPEG_IMPL tells what will
exactly get used. Much less confusion.
Thirdly, this opens space for having more than two different
implementations
On 02/02/2015 09:12 AM, Ulrich Mueller wrote:
What are your thoughts?
In a nutshell, you have a binary choice here, namely ffmpeg or libav
as implementation, and instead of one USE flag you want to introduce
two (ffmpeg_impl_ffmpeg and ffmpeg_impl_libav), but of the 4 possible
Dnia 2015-02-02, o godz. 10:44:46
Michael Orlitzky m...@gentoo.org napisał(a):
On 02/02/2015 09:12 AM, Ulrich Mueller wrote:
What are your thoughts?
In a nutshell, you have a binary choice here, namely ffmpeg or libav
as implementation, and instead of one USE flag you want to
Dnia 2015-02-02, o godz. 08:54:04
Gordon Pettey petteyg...@gmail.com napisał(a):
Having USE=ffmpeg at all is the source of any confusion in case somebody
is using libav. Either with an expand set (which seems wasted just for two
options) or two regular flags, just force one or none. There is
Having USE=ffmpeg at all is the source of any confusion in case somebody
is using libav. Either with an expand set (which seems wasted just for two
options) or two regular flags, just force one or none. There is absolutely
no sense in having USE=ffmpeg on for a system using libav.
On Mon, Feb 2,
On 02/02/2015 10:50 AM, Michał Górny wrote:
Maybe. Though it still will keep the confusion of !libav meaning ffmpeg.
We could remove USE=libav from the tree, leaving only USE=ffmpeg. Then
ffmpeg_impl_libav would switch the implementation if USE=ffmpeg is enabled.
Maybe a little cleaner
On 02/02/2015 09:06 AM, Michał Górny wrote:
Hi, everyone.
Just after the news item got published, user Wes mailed me with
a suggestion. While I think someone mentioned it earlier
in the bikesheds over ffmpeg, I have completely forgotten about it
and now I'd like to reconsider it. For this
On 3 February 2015 at 00:00, Michael Orlitzky m...@gentoo.org wrote:
On 02/02/2015 10:50 AM, Michał Górny wrote:
Maybe. Though it still will keep the confusion of !libav meaning ffmpeg.
We could remove USE=libav from the tree, leaving only USE=ffmpeg. Then
ffmpeg_impl_libav would switch the
On Tue, 3 Feb 2015, Ben de Groot wrote:
Please restore the news item and unmask the revbumps, so we can get on
with business. :)
+1
pgpf349IEiEzV.pgp
Description: PGP signature
On Mon, 2 Feb 2015 17:14:22 +0100
Ulrich Mueller u...@gentoo.org wrote:
On Mon, 2 Feb 2015, Alexis Ballier wrote:
Ulrich Mueller u...@gentoo.org wrote:
In a nutshell, you have a binary choice here, namely ffmpeg or
libav as implementation, and instead of one USE flag you want to
On Mon, 2 Feb 2015 15:12:50 +0100
Ulrich Mueller u...@gentoo.org wrote:
What are your thoughts?
In a nutshell, you have a binary choice here, namely ffmpeg or libav
as implementation, and instead of one USE flag you want to introduce
two (ffmpeg_impl_ffmpeg and ffmpeg_impl_libav), but of
On Mon, 2 Feb 2015, Alexis Ballier wrote:
Ulrich Mueller u...@gentoo.org wrote:
In a nutshell, you have a binary choice here, namely ffmpeg or
libav as implementation, and instead of one USE flag you want to
introduce two (ffmpeg_impl_ffmpeg and ffmpeg_impl_libav), but of
the 4 possible
On Mon, 2 Feb 2015, Alexis Ballier wrote:
On Mon, 2 Feb 2015 17:14:22 +0100
Ulrich Mueller u...@gentoo.org 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
Dnia 2015-02-02, o godz. 18:18:14
Alexis Ballier aball...@gentoo.org napisał(a):
On Mon, 2 Feb 2015 18:08:01 +0100
Ulrich Mueller u...@gentoo.org wrote:
On Mon, 2 Feb 2015, Alexis Ballier wrote:
On Mon, 2 Feb 2015 17:14:22 +0100
Ulrich Mueller u...@gentoo.org wrote:
Why?
Dnia 2015-02-02, o godz. 18:08:01
Ulrich Mueller u...@gentoo.org napisał(a):
On Mon, 2 Feb 2015, Alexis Ballier wrote:
On Mon, 2 Feb 2015 17:14:22 +0100
Ulrich Mueller u...@gentoo.org wrote:
Why? When you have USE=-ffmpeg, the libav flag is a don't care
which is ignored. ffmpeg
On Mon, 2 Feb 2015 18:08:01 +0100
Ulrich Mueller u...@gentoo.org wrote:
On Mon, 2 Feb 2015, Alexis Ballier wrote:
On Mon, 2 Feb 2015 17:14:22 +0100
Ulrich Mueller u...@gentoo.org wrote:
Why? When you have USE=-ffmpeg, the libav flag is a don't care
which is ignored. ffmpeg controls
Dnia 2015-02-02, o godz. 11:00:59
Michael Orlitzky m...@gentoo.org napisał(a):
On 02/02/2015 10:50 AM, Michał Górny wrote:
Maybe. Though it still will keep the confusion of !libav meaning ffmpeg.
We could remove USE=libav from the tree, leaving only USE=ffmpeg. Then
ffmpeg_impl_libav
21 matches
Mail list logo
