Re: Update ffmpeg in F24 to 3.1.x ?

2016-11-23 Thread Julian Sikorski
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

Re: Update ffmpeg in F24 to 3.1.x ?

2016-11-23 Thread Sérgio Basto
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. >

Re: Update ffmpeg in F24 to 3.1.x ?

2016-11-23 Thread Xavier Bachelot
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

Re: Update ffmpeg in F24 to 3.1.x ?

2016-11-22 Thread Michael Cronenworth
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

Re: Update ffmpeg in F24 to 3.1.x ?

2016-11-12 Thread Sérgio Basto
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

Re: Update ffmpeg in F24 to 3.1.x ?

2016-11-12 Thread Kevin Kofler
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

Re: Update ffmpeg in F24 to 3.1.x ?

2016-11-05 Thread Julian Sikorski
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-

Re: Update ffmpeg in F24 to 3.1.x ?

2016-10-14 Thread Sérgio Basto
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

Re: Update ffmpeg in F24 to 3.1.x ?

2016-10-13 Thread Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski
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

Re: Update ffmpeg in F24 to 3.1.x ?

2016-10-13 Thread Nicolas Chauvet
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

Re: Update ffmpeg in F24 to 3.1.x ?

2016-10-13 Thread Nicolas Chauvet
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

Re: Update ffmpeg in F24 to 3.1.x ?

2016-10-12 Thread Michael Cronenworth
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

Re: Update ffmpeg in F24 to 3.1.x ?

2016-10-12 Thread Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski
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

Re: Update ffmpeg in F24 to 3.1.x ?

2016-10-12 Thread 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 says 3.1 is API- and ABI-compatible to 3.0 (with only one application

Re: Update ffmpeg in F24 to 3.1.x ?

2016-10-11 Thread Sérgio Basto
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 ? ).

Re: Update ffmpeg in F24 to 3.1.x ?

2016-10-11 Thread Michael Cronenworth
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

Update ffmpeg in F24 to 3.1.x ?

2016-10-11 Thread Sérgio Basto
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.