Re: x264 and ffmpeg - here we go again

2013/10/30 Sérgio Basto <sergio(a)serjux.com <mailto:sergio@serjux.com>> On Qua, 2013-10-30 at 07:22 +0100, Julian Sikorski wrote: > W dniu 29.10.2013 22:11, Sérgio Basto pisze: > > On Ter, 2013-10-29 at 14:32 -0600, Ken Dreyer wrote: > >> If we push ffmpeg 2.1 before we branch, we would ship F20 with a > >> broken VLC, in that case? > > > > No, of course we won't ship VLC broken . > > > > We just ship F20 in day of release or very closer until then we have > > time to fix VLC . > > > I have just confirmed that VLC is not broken, it builds. I have cooked > up a mock config containing a mix of F20 fedora repos and rawhide > rpmfusion ones, and VLC was built successfully. I am rebuilding > everything else as we speak. The results are likely to be even better > than before, but I would like to be absolutely certain. Hi x264 stable git version just updated, some minutes ago , so I have x264-0.138-1.20131030gitc628e3b.fc19.src.rpm to submit . May be do all mass rebuild together we will have less work , what do you think ? About if we submit or not ? , don't want sounds rude, but my opinion is : what we are waiting for ? :) May I bootstrap x264 ? I'm not against it, but I should mention that there are few runtime issue that can arise even if the package is building fine. (such the one described in the ffmpeg2theora bugreport). There is also an issue with gpac that trigger a patch in x264. I really think gpac is culpid here (and shouldn't rely on libpng or else). Any chances to fix it on your side ? Beside that I'm fine with the update. Vlc 2.1.1 should rise-up soon, but the rdp API issue that is only in rawhide will not be fixed. librdp failed to version it's api appropriately. Thx for the hard work. Nicolas (kwizart)