1 |
On Wed, 23 Mar 2011 15:08:01 +0100, Tomáš Chvátal wrote: |
2 |
> Hi guys, |
3 |
> As there is new ffmpeg fork that is a bit alive we should provide it |
4 |
> as |
5 |
> alternative to current media-video/ffmpeg. |
6 |
> |
7 |
> So libav is stored in media-video/libav (look at it, try to find |
8 |
> issues |
9 |
> and stuff). |
10 |
> |
11 |
> Virtual package is virtual/ffmpeg where now i implemented it to have |
12 |
> versioned dependencies. |
13 |
> So there is virtual/ffmpeg-0.6 virtual/ffmpeg-9999 where the apps can |
14 |
> decide what they need. |
15 |
> Samuli pointed out that we do not slot ffmpeg nor support versioned |
16 |
> deps |
17 |
> and always demand everything to be working with latest. If you have |
18 |
> strong opinion on that one please express it here so the virtual gets |
19 |
> redesigned to just simple virtual/ffmpeg-0.1 without any version |
20 |
> stated |
21 |
> in it. I myself like the chance to express the version explicitly. |
22 |
> Virtual itself provide access to all useflags currently used in eapi2 |
23 |
> deps. More can be added when required. |
24 |
> |
25 |
> For what is libav i would suggest you go to their homepage |
26 |
> http://libav.org/ or poke Diego or Luca whom are actually members of |
27 |
> upstream :) |
28 |
> |
29 |
> And finally the list of current dependencies over ffmpeg see in |
30 |
> attachment. |
31 |
> |
32 |
> Cheers |
33 |
> |
34 |
> Tomas |
35 |
|
36 |
When reading about the "fork" awhile back, I assumed that ffmpeg would |
37 |
die and libav would continue in its place. Do we really need a virtual |
38 |
for this?? |
39 |
-Jeremy |