On Wed, 3 Sep 2014 23:33:48 -0400 Reinhard Tartler <siret...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 3, 2014 at 9:34 PM, Michael Niedermayer <michae...@gmx.at> wrote: > > On Wed, Sep 03, 2014 at 08:22:43PM -0400, Reinhard Tartler wrote: > >> On Wed, Sep 3, 2014 at 9:39 AM, Michael Niedermayer <michae...@gmx.at> > >> wrote: > >> > On Tue, Sep 02, 2014 at 10:06:10PM +0000, Thorsten Glaser wrote: > >> >> Hi, > >> >> > >> >> as discussed in IRC, I was trying to minimal-invasively port > >> >> libpostproc (the Debian source package) to x32¹. I could not > >> >> test it (for lack of a stand-alone test program) yet, but at > >> >> least I got it to build. > >> > > >> > you could try to test by buiding ffmpeg as a whole but disable asm > >> > everywhere except libpostproc > >> > that might allow "easy" testing though fate or ffmpeg with libavfilter > >> > >> Is http://git.videolan.org/?p=libpostproc.git still maintained? > > > > AFAIK, no, it seems the last commit is 2 years ago > > > > > >> > >> The Debian package tracks that repository, and ideally we could > >> collect the postproc patches there. > > > > libpostproc was and is maintained in > > git://source.ffmpeg.org/ffmpeg.git > > So the promise given in > https://lists.libav.org/pipermail/libav-devel/2012-February/020712.html > doesn't hold anymore? > > Any chance to make you reconsider reviving the standalone libpostproc.git? Yes, let me add my protest against this bullshit of still maintaining libpostproc as part of ffmpeg.git in FFmpeg. > > please use that for the debian package > > I fear that's not feasible at this point. > _______________________________________________ ffmpeg-devel mailing list ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org http://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-devel
