| 1 |
On Sat, 2 Mar 2013 14:08:28 +0100 |
| 2 |
Tom Wijsman <TomWij@g.o> wrote: |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
> On Sat, 2 Mar 2013 14:54:22 +0800 |
| 5 |
> Ben de Groot <yngwin@g.o> wrote: |
| 6 |
> |
| 7 |
> > media-video/avidemux (bundled libs) |
| 8 |
> |
| 9 |
> I like this application, but am not so sure about maintaining this... |
| 10 |
> =/ |
| 11 |
> |
| 12 |
> Would it be reasonable to create a new package avidemux-ffmpeg in |
| 13 |
> which we create a version of ffmpeg with their patches applied? |
| 14 |
> Perhaps we can also remove the parts of ffmpeg that aren't used by |
| 15 |
> avidemux to keep the overhead of having ffmpeg twice on the system |
| 16 |
> low. |
| 17 |
> |
| 18 |
> I don't see any other reliable solution, unless upstream is willing to |
| 19 |
> stop bundling ffmpeg and get their patches incorporated on that. |
| 20 |
> But upon reading the progress on Debian, there is barely any progress |
| 21 |
> on that as far as I am aware of; and I'm not willing to maintain a |
| 22 |
> package that has 1) an unpatched ffmpeg that breaks it for people or |
| 23 |
> 2) a bundled ffmpeg that keeps it from getting unmasked / |
| 24 |
> reliable / ... |
| 25 |
> |
| 26 |
> The other approach is for someone to attempt to try to get all these |
| 27 |
> patches upstream, but some of them are undocumented which makes it |
| 28 |
> hard to understand what the changes actually are done for; and at |
| 29 |
> this point in time it is not guaranteed that ffmpeg would take these |
| 30 |
> patches. |
| 31 |
> |
| 32 |
> So, what is the Qt herd's opinion on creating a avidemux-ffmpeg |
| 33 |
> package? |
| 34 |
|
| 35 |
In the end if you dump their ffmpeg version and use it only for |
| 36 |
avidemux, the end result is the same as bundling it. |
| 37 |
|
| 38 |
If you want to do things correctly, you'd try to get the patches merged |
| 39 |
upstream. Maybe some are not even necessary these days. |
| 40 |
|
| 41 |
First you'd need to have an option to use system ffmpeg. Then you could |
| 42 |
work on porting patches. |
| 43 |
|
| 44 |
That is what xbmc is doing: they have a bundled copy with a couple of |
| 45 |
patches they try to get merged upstream (mainly windows patches btw) |
| 46 |
but allow using system version. That way it is easier to work on fixing |
| 47 |
bugs rather than trusting avidemux for adding random undocumented |
| 48 |
fixes... |
Archives