ffmpeg-2.4 released

[Julian Sikorski]

W dniu 07.10.2014 o 08:02, Julian Sikorski pisze:
> W dniu 04.10.2014 o 11:39, Julian Sikorski pisze:
>> W dniu 25.09.2014 o 21:04, Nicolas Chauvet pisze:
>>> 2014-09-25 20:44 GMT+02:00 Sérgio Basto
>>> <sergio at serjux.com
>>> <mailto:sergio at serjux.com>>:
>>>
>>>     On Qui, 2014-09-25 at 20:33 +0200, Nicolas Chauvet wrote:
>>>     > 2014-09-25 19:27 GMT+02:00 Julian Sikorski
>>>     <belegdol at gmail.com
>>>     <mailto:belegdol at gmail.com>>:
>>>     >         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.
>>>     >
>>>     >
>>>     >
>>>     > Can we care about rebuilding all dependencies at the same time ?
>>>     >
>>>     yes of course , I will take care ,
>>>
>>>     but may I build all for new ffmpeg /x624 for F20 ?
>>>
>>>
>>> SO I NAK the ffmpeg update in F-20 because the way the update was done
>>> in Rawhide.
>>> I don't want to hear about it. This is not acceptable not to have
>>> coordinated the update.
>>> PERIOD.
>>>
>>>
>>> -- 
>>> -
>>>
>>> Nicolas (kwizart)
>>
>> In case this gets reconsidered at some point in the future: I have done
>> a test rebuild of F-20 dependecies against ffmpeg-2.3.4, and all 37 have
>> built correctly.
>> Moreover, only libavfilter has a soname bump (please find rpmsodiff
>> output attached). This means that we really only need to rebuild
>> dvdstyler, mpv and xbmc.
>>
>> Best regards,
>> Julian
>>
> Please be advised that 2.3 was recently removed from the maintained
> branches list:
> 
> https://ffmpeg.org/pipermail/ffmpeg-devel/2014-September/162904.html
> 
> Thus, if we ever rebase F-20, we should use 2.2 and not 2.3.
> 
> Best regards,
> Julian
> 
As expected, everything builds against ffmpeg-2.2.9 too. Relevant sodiff
attached.

Best regards,
Julian
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: ffmpeg-sodiff.diff
Type: text/x-patch
Size: 7932 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <https://lists.rpmfusion.org/pipermail/rpmfusion-developers/attachments/20141007/16a6668b/attachment.bin>