Andrew Church wrote:
>>As an aside, it it possible to specify a multipart .nuv fileset as input
>>to 'transcode'?
>>
>>
>
> Not at the moment, I'm afraid.
>
This is how I discovered the glitch with multipart .nuv
I figured that there was no direct support, so I transcoded both parts
of a
On 1/24/07, Andrew Church <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>As an aside, it it possible to specify a multipart .nuv fileset as input
>to 'transcode'?
Not at the moment, I'm afraid. (Unless directory handling is back--
Francesco, did anything ever happen with that?)
directory mode is still un
>As an aside, it it possible to specify a multipart .nuv fileset as input
>to 'transcode'?
Not at the moment, I'm afraid. (Unless directory handling is back--
Francesco, did anything ever happen with that?) For now, you'll have to
work around it by stripping file headers from the second and
Andrew Church wrote:
>>Multipart .nuv files contain records whose timestamps reflect the time
>>since the capture started, not necessarily zero...
>>
>>
>
> There are a few issues with the patch itself (no static variables are
>allowed in shared objects, for one)
>
>
Sorry, I didn't kno
>Folks:
>I believe I have my first contribution to make!
>Multipart .nuv files contain records whose timestamps reflect the time
>since the capture started, not necessarily zero if this is a later file
>of a multipart capture. I've attached a patch which allegedly fixes
>this. It works for me, t
Folks:
I believe I have my first contribution to make!
Multipart .nuv files contain records whose timestamps reflect the time
since the capture started, not necessarily zero if this is a later file
of a multipart capture. I've attached a patch which allegedly fixes
this. It works for me, though