** Changed in: ffmpeg-debian (Debian)
Status: Unknown = Fix Released
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu.
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/340303
Title:
FFE: ffmpeg 0.5
To manage notifications about this bug go
** Branch linked: lp:ubuntu/karmic/ffmpeg-debian
--
FFE: ffmpeg 0.5
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/340303
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu.
--
ubuntu-bugs mailing list
ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com
accepted in jaunty
** Changed in: ffmpeg (Ubuntu)
Status: New = Fix Released
--
FFE: ffmpeg 0.5
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/340303
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu.
--
ubuntu-bugs mailing list
This bug was fixed in the package ffmpeg-debian -
3:0.svn20090303-1ubuntu1
---
ffmpeg-debian (3:0.svn20090303-1ubuntu1) jaunty; urgency=low
* FFE granted in LP: #340303.
* merge from debian/unstable.
* remaining changes to debian:
- don't build-depend on libfaad-dev,
** Changed in: ffmpeg-debian (Ubuntu)
Sourcepackagename: ffmpeg = ffmpeg-debian
--
FFE: ffmpeg 0.5
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/340303
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu.
--
ubuntu-bugs mailing list
Well it seems like sebastian, and nullack are for the feature freeze
exception, and I am certainly not opposed to it. I propose a division of
labor to push this ffe through.
From my point of view the diff seems somewhat cumbersome to dissect into
individual bugs and fixes. I think a reasonable
I'm not convinced we should spend those efforts before being asked for
that, we are still before beta and the upgrade might be accepted on the
basis that most changes are bug fixes, that sync between gstreamer and
ffmpeg would be good and that debian uses it too
--
FFE: ffmpeg 0.5
well my own build of ffmpeg .5 statistically should work with all 1.5 tb
of avc files with a 95% confidence level; I'm certainly satisfied.
Ubuntu Release seems subscribed already. Do we need to do anything more
to proceed?
--
FFE: ffmpeg 0.5
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/340303
You received
release ack:
It appears that the 0.5 release was well tested already. I understand
that 0.5 doesn't change ABI compared to what we already have in jaunty?
If that is so, then please go ahead.
If it does introduce a new SONAME, we need to coordinate the rebuilds,
as there are quite a few reverse
Sindhudweep there is no AVC decoder that will decode all AVC file types.
The profiles are simply too broad and the levels too many within the
standard for all AVC streams to play with the one decoder. Just like
how no one AVC encoder will encode for all profiles and levels. For the
ffmpeg decoder
@nullack: Indeed. Most of my content does not fall under any one profile
however. I have a good variety encoded with strange motion estimation
and b-frame counts. What i meant was that i did not see any regressions
compiling ffmpeg .5 vs svn20090204.
--
FFE: ffmpeg 0.5
** Summary changed:
- Please sync with upstream release of ffmpeg .5
+ FFE: ffmpeg 0.5
** Description changed:
+ * A description of the proposed changes, with sufficient detail to
+ estimate their potential impact on the distribution
+
+ Currently, jaunty ships a snapshot of ffmpeg dated
I have conducted fairly wide tests on AVC playback using my own compiles
and have not identified any problems with properly encoded H.264 streams
with the release code.
Its an essential upgrade to the release revision given the number of
fixes committed to SVN.
--
FFE: ffmpeg 0.5
13 matches
Mail list logo
