3:28 p.m.
In order to have proper WebM/VP8 in ffmpeg, I filed
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/755305 to request a libvpx update in RHEL
6. (I don't personally have a support contract with Red Hat, so I
don't know how much weight this will have.)
- Ken
5 p.m.
On Sun, Nov 20, 2011 at 9:28 AM, Ken Dreyer <ktdreyer(a)ktdreyer.com> wrote:
In order to have proper WebM/VP8 in ffmpeg, I filed
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/755305 to request a libvpx update in RHEL
6. (I don't personally have a support contract with Red Hat, so I
don't know how much weight this will have.)
Sounds good! In the meantime I guess we can still disable vpx until
that makes it to stable.
Richard
2:21 p.m.
Ken Dreyer wrote:
In order to have proper WebM/VP8 in ffmpeg, I filed
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/755305 to request a libvpx update in RHEL
6. (I don't personally have a support contract with Red Hat, so I
don't know how much weight this will have.)
Looks like none at all:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=755305#c2
:-(
Kevin Kofler
2:24 p.m.
On Mon, Nov 21, 2011 at 8:21 AM, Kevin Kofler <kevin.kofler(a)chello.at> wrote:
Ken Dreyer wrote:
> In order to have proper WebM/VP8 in ffmpeg, I filed
> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/755305 to request a libvpx update in RHEL
> 6. (I don't personally have a support contract with Red Hat, so I
> don't know how much weight this will have.)
Looks like none at all:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=755305#c2
:-(
I understand the reasoning to an extent, but it still odd they would
keep an older version in EL6 than what's in EL5.
Oh well. At least it's not a showstopper for MythTV.
Richard
5:53 p.m.
On Nov 21, 2011, at 9:24 AM, Richard Shaw <hobbes1069(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On Mon, Nov 21, 2011 at 8:21 AM, Kevin Kofler
<kevin.kofler(a)chello.at> wrote:
> Ken Dreyer wrote:
>> In order to have proper WebM/VP8 in ffmpeg, I filed
>> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/755305 to request a libvpx update in RHEL
>> 6. (I don't personally have a support contract with Red Hat, so I
>> don't know how much weight this will have.)
>
> Looks like none at all:
> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=755305#c2
> :-(
I understand the reasoning to an extent, but it still odd they would
keep an older version in EL6 than what's in EL5.
There was no reasoning at all beyond an automated bugbot. Its too late in the 6.2 cycle,
so I updated some behind-the-scenes flags for 6.3 consideration. Of course, its going to
be 6 months plus before you see 6.3, but...
Oh well. At least it's not a showstopper for MythTV.
Its almost entirely irrelevant, imo.
--j
4:11 p.m.
On Mon, Nov 21, 2011 at 10:53 AM, Jarod Wilson <jarod(a)wilsonet.com> wrote:
There was no reasoning at all beyond an automated bugbot. Its too
late in
the 6.2 cycle, so I updated some behind-the-scenes flags for 6.3
consideration. Of course, its going to be 6 months plus before you see
6.3, but...
Thanks for enlightening our poor bugzilla-fu skills :)
- Ken
4:35 p.m.
On Nov 22, 2011, at 11:11 AM, Ken Dreyer <ktdreyer(a)ktdreyer.com> wrote:
On Mon, Nov 21, 2011 at 10:53 AM, Jarod Wilson
<jarod(a)wilsonet.com> wrote:
> There was no reasoning at all beyond an automated bugbot. Its too late in
> the 6.2 cycle, so I updated some behind-the-scenes flags for 6.3
> consideration. Of course, its going to be 6 months plus before you see
> 6.3, but...
Thanks for enlightening our poor bugzilla-fu skills :)
Yeah, there's a fair bit you can't see in Red Hat's bugzilla without a
sufficiently privileged accout and more that doesn't make complete sense without
knowledge of the inner workings of the whole process...
--j
4784
days inactive
4786
days old
rpmfusion-developers@lists.rpmfusion.org
6 comments
4 participants
participants (4)
-
Jarod Wilson -
Ken Dreyer -
Kevin Kofler -
Richard Shaw