Hi,
I meant that it seems problematic to write an updated file to itself,
because the operation could erase the data before it is read. Unless
you read the entire file first, or write to a temporary file which is
then renamed. I deal with FLAC files that are over a gigabyte,
meaning that this could easily exceed normal buffers.
Just curious. I guess I could go test it myself... or look in the
source...
Brian
On Apr 10, 2007, at 10:50, Josh Coalson wrote:
with or without -f, flac doesn't check if the file gets bigger;
the user might have specified more metadata/padding or just want
to use the newer encoder because of some feature.
Josh
--- Brian Willoughby <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Hmm, what if the FLAC options produce a larger file on output than
input? Would -f (force) cause the whole process to fail as soon as
the output exceeded the input?
Brian
On Apr 9, 2007, at 17:01, Josh Coalson wrote:
--- Harry Sack <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
is it possible to re-encode an existing FLAC file by using the FLAC
file itself as input to the encoder like this: flac -V --best
inputfile.flac OR do you have decode it to WAV first?
yes you can re-encode from FLAC. that command works but if you want
it to go back to the same file you have to add the -f (force) option.
http://flac.sourceforge.net/documentation_tools_flac.html
_______________________________________________
Flac mailing list
Flac@xiph.org
http://lists.xiph.org/mailman/listinfo/flac
