W dniu 23.11.2016 o 09:14, Xavier Bachelot pisze:
> Hi,
>
> On 23/11/2016 08:41, Michael Cronenworth wrote:
>> On 10/14/2016 11:09 AM, Sérgio Basto wrote:
>>> I think we can perform the mass rebuild (or not) just in F24 without
>>> touching F25 and rawhide.
>>
>> May I ask why a mass rebuild was
Hi,
On Qua, 2016-11-23 at 09:14 +0100, Xavier Bachelot wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On 23/11/2016 08:41, Michael Cronenworth wrote:
> >
> > On 10/14/2016 11:09 AM, Sérgio Basto wrote:
> > >
> > > I think we can perform the mass rebuild (or not) just in F24
> > > without
> > > touching F25 and rawhide.
>
Hi,
On 23/11/2016 08:41, Michael Cronenworth wrote:
> On 10/14/2016 11:09 AM, Sérgio Basto wrote:
>> I think we can perform the mass rebuild (or not) just in F24 without
>> touching F25 and rawhide.
>
> May I ask why a mass rebuild was not performed?
>
> I just uncovered an issue with the
On 10/14/2016 11:09 AM, Sérgio Basto wrote:
I think we can perform the mass rebuild (or not) just in F24 without
touching F25 and rawhide.
May I ask why a mass rebuild was not performed?
I just uncovered an issue with the FFMpeg 3.1 update. Kodi core dumps when
attempting to play MPEG2
On Sáb, 2016-11-12 at 09:45 +0100, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> Julian Sikorski wrote:
> >
> > Could you please point me to a reference for this? I looked around
> > a bit
> > but couldn't find one. Thanks!
> The original post had a quote:
> >
> > "There are no SONAME changes, only new symbols added to
Julian Sikorski wrote:
> Could you please point me to a reference for this? I looked around a bit
> but couldn't find one. Thanks!
The original post had a quote:
| "There are no SONAME changes, only new symbols added to the libraries,
| so they're backwards compatible and no rebuild of
W dniu 12.10.2016 o 16:15, Kevin Kofler pisze:
> Michael Cronenworth wrote:
>> This is not ideal. The ffmpeg 3.0.x branch is not going unmaintained
>> AFAIK. We can't push out a big rebuild of a major library so one, new
>> package can be introduced into F24.
>
> Huh? Upstream says 3.1 is API-
jor bug, but and if
we find one ? will be much more complicate to fix it (we have vlc that
is not much stable) and what upstream will say first ? "please update
to 3.1x". So with this scenario and in this time frame, for me, is
better have F24 and F25 with same ffmpeg, is better for testing,
ever
On Thursday, 13 October 2016 at 10:01, Nicolas Chauvet wrote:
[...]
> (on a side note I would like to have a my ffmpeg-nonfree patches
> reviewed/merged before any backport to f24 - rfbz#4243)
I'll try to take a look at those before the weekend.
Regards,
Dominik
--
Fedora
nches, I see the same kind of fixes between branches. I think there
is just normal bugfix . So not having 3.1x only means missing the 3.1
specific features. So It's probably safe from ffmpeg itslef
perpective.
> I hope have one decision, quickly and close this subject (update ffmpeg
> in F24
2016-10-12 16:15 GMT+02:00 Kevin Kofler :
> Michael Cronenworth wrote:
>> This is not ideal. The ffmpeg 3.0.x branch is not going unmaintained
>> AFAIK. We can't push out a big rebuild of a major library so one, new
>> package can be introduced into F24.
>
> Huh? Upstream
On 10/12/2016 09:15 AM, Kevin Kofler wrote:
Huh? Upstream says 3.1 is API- and ABI-compatible to 3.0 (with only one
application needed fixing for some reason), so it should be perfectly
suitable as an update. This is similar to Qt upgrades that have often been
done in Fedora (where there are
On Wednesday, 12 October 2016 at 02:49, Sérgio Basto wrote:
[...]
> I hope have one decision, quickly and close this subject (update ffmpeg
> in F24 to 3.1.x ? ).
+1 to updating.
Regards,
Dominik
--
Fedora http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Rathann
RPMFusion http://rpmfusion.org
"Fa
Michael Cronenworth wrote:
> This is not ideal. The ffmpeg 3.0.x branch is not going unmaintained
> AFAIK. We can't push out a big rebuild of a major library so one, new
> package can be introduced into F24.
Huh? Upstream says 3.1 is API- and ABI-compatible to 3.0 (with only one
application
On Ter, 2016-10-11 at 21:37 -0500, Michael Cronenworth wrote:
> On 10/11/2016 07:49 PM, Sérgio Basto wrote:
> >
> > the mailing list".
> >
> > I hope have one decision, quickly and close this subject (update
> > ffmpeg
> > in F24 to 3.1.x ? ).
On 10/11/2016 07:49 PM, Sérgio Basto wrote:
the mailing list".
I hope have one decision, quickly and close this subject (update ffmpeg
in F24 to 3.1.x ? ).
This is not ideal. The ffmpeg 3.0.x branch is not going unmaintained AFAIK. We can't
push out a big rebuild of a major library s
so counts).
Finally Nicolas wrote: "I'm sure we should have a decision better
sooner than later about this (...) I'm reserving my last arguments for
the mailing list".
I hope have one decision, quickly and close this subject (update ffmpeg
in F24 to 3.1.x ? ).
Best regards,
--
Sérgio M. B.
17 matches
Mail list logo