W dniu 02.10.2014 o 07:41, Julian Sikorski pisze: > W dniu 02.10.2014 o 01:46, Sérgio Basto pisze: >> On Qua, 2014-10-01 at 19:38 +0200, Julian Sikorski wrote: >>> W dniu 25.09.2014 o 20:51, Sérgio Basto pisze: >>>> On Qui, 2014-09-25 at 19:27 +0200, Julian Sikorski wrote: >>>>> W dniu 25.09.2014 o 17:26, Sérgio Basto pisze: >>>>>> On Qui, 2014-09-25 at 07:47 +0200, Julian Sikorski wrote: >>>>>>> W dniu 21.09.2014 o 23:20, Sérgio Basto pisze: >>>>>>>> On Dom, 2014-09-21 at 19:03 +0200, Julian Sikorski wrote: >>>>>>>>> Dear all, >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> ffmpeg-2.4 was released recently which means we have another rebuild >>>>>>>>> coming up. I have done a test and only 4 packages have failed, which >>>>>>>>> is >>>>>>>>> not bad given the extent of API changes: >>>>>>>>> - alsa-plugins-freeworld: pcm_a52.c:101:45: error: 'struct a52_ctx' >>>>>>>>> has >>>>>>>>> no member named 'frame' >>>>>>>>> - dvbcut: lavfmuxer.cpp:63:57: error: 'av_new_stream' was not declared >>>>>>>>> in this scope >>>>>>>>> - kmediafactory: videofile.cpp:74:45: error: 'av_find_stream_info' was >>>>>>>>> not declared in this scope (mencoder needs to be rebuilt first) >>>>>>>>> - vlc: configure: error: libavcodec versions 56 and later are not >>>>>>>>> supported yet. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Given that we are close to branching (?), what would be the good time >>>>>>>>> to >>>>>>>>> do the rebuild? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> yes, I don't see any problem, I can do the mass rebuild of others >>>>>>>> packages, no problem. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> My question if we ever put this updates on F20 ? I'd like put it at >>>>>>>> least on update-testing. I can made a list of the packages, with >>>>>>>> ffmpeg / x264 dependencies, that should stay on update-testing for more >>>>>>>> time than usual, but is not my decision . >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Best regards, >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> ffmpeg-2.4.1 has now been built. I will take care of rebuilding mplayer. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Best regards, >>>>>>> Julian >>>>>> >>>>>> Hi, please wait, let's wait to know if kwizart allow us to put ffmpeg >>>>>> 2.3.3 in F20, we think it is better and we have strong reasons , like >>>>>> explained in >>>>>> https://lists.rpmfusion.org/pipermail/rpmfusion-developers/2014-September/017393.html >>>>>> >>>>>> Kwizart , do you allow this exception ? >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Thanks, >>>>>> >>>>> Just to be clear: I only pushed it to devel. F20 is still an open >>>>> question. >>>> >>>> yes , but I want copy from devel to F20, the state of art , before >>>> upgrading to ffmpeg 2.4 , and it is more easier , clean etc , if just >>>> after this (update ffmpeg to 2.4) . ... >>>> >>>> >>>> Thanks, >>>> >>> If we ever decide to upgrade f20 (which I don't think we will given the >>> current fiasco), please do not overwrite the f20 spec with f21 one. I >>> suggest comparing the two and upgrading in parallel, something like git >>> cherry-pick. >> >> Hi , Julian , that is the point, this is cvs , we don't have "upgrading >> in parallel", I try rolling devel to branches and yes "overwrite the f20 >> spec" and what is in f20 spec is discard. Is the only rule of >> organization that we have . > > I was not aware we have that rule. Until now, I was maintaining seperate > branches for ffmpeg and mplayer. I still believe that upgrading F-20 > independently is better as it preserves the history better.
Case in point: rawhide ffmpeg has celt support disabled by default because the package has been retired in fedora. There is no reason to drop it in F-20. I have compared the F-20 and devel spec files, and the following changes are required if we decide to upgrade: - version bump to 2.3.x - rename README to README.md in %doc Please do not overwrite the F20 ffmpeg spec file. I think only makes sense for packages where the branches were kept at the same version at all times, which is not the case here. Best regards, Julian > >> >> But the main problem was and still is, lack of time , so I and kwizart >> (writing off-list) haven't much time next days and he point to try again >> (the mass rebuild) no this weekend but next weekend, meantime >> ffmpeg-2.3.3 still on devel (I think) . >> >> This is an ancient system so it give much work do all mass rebuild, see >> if we can make a new builder happen. >> >> Kwizart roll back to ffmpeg-2.3 , because though we haven't patches for >> vlc build against ffmpeg2-4 and lack of time of course . > > What was wrong with the vlc patch I linked to? > >> >> Please be patient ... >> > Julian >
