On Thu, Sep 4, 2014 at 7:27 AM, Michael Niedermayer <michae...@gmx.at> wrote:
> Hi Reinhard
>
> On Wed, Sep 03, 2014 at 11:33:48PM -0400, Reinhard Tartler 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?
>
> Can you be a bit more specific ? what "promise" by whom exactly do
> you speak of ?
>
The promise of having a maintained stand-alone libpostproc.
>>
>> Any chance to make you reconsider reviving the standalone libpostproc.git?
>
> From what i remember there where some problems with that repository
> so actually maintaining it would probably imply first recreating it
>
> for example try to build a old revission:
>
> git checkout a792a836e3d9ef6f1f311604b38095e587282ca7
> (this is libpostproc/master~20 ATM)
> ./configure
> -bash: ./configure: No such file or directory
>
> this is a problem for anyone maintaining the code as for example
> git bisect
> would not be usable at all
>
> or if you do a git show
> commit a792a836e3d9ef6f1f311604b38095e587282ca7
> Merge: 1d261c2 7f1c286 7391383 8f2dfd0 8cf4ef5 59d8d9c
>
> Its a commit with 6 ancestors, no commit in FFmpeg or Libav has 6
> ancestors
>
> So really, if someone wants to maintain or use libpostproc.git, first
> these things need to be fixed
>
> but i dont understand why you dont just take libpostproc
> from where its developed, tested and used ?
>
> but if it helps i guess we could copy the libpostproc from FFmpeg
> over the one in libpostproc.git (which is what reimar suggested)
> libpostproc.git was only intended to be a copy of FFmpeg with libs
> other than libpostproc removed anyway.
>
> Would this help you ?
At the end of the day, I need a source tarball that contains
maintained sources of a stand-alone libpostproc. I don't care too much
how it is created, as long as it doesn't result in code-duplication
with existing sources in Debian.
--
regards,
Reinhard
_______________________________________________
ffmpeg-devel mailing list
ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org
http://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-devel
