ffmpeg-2.4 released

[Julian Sikorski]

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
>