On Tue, Feb 27, 2007 at 11:40:07AM +0100, Robert Millan [ackstorm] wrote: > On Tue, Feb 27, 2007 at 11:36:04AM +0100, Diego Biurrun wrote: > > On Mon, Feb 26, 2007 at 01:31:21PM +0100, Robert Millan [ackstorm] wrote: > > > On Mon, Feb 26, 2007 at 01:16:39PM +0100, Diego Biurrun wrote: > > > > > But then again we could try to fit well for users of powerful machines > > > > > as well. What do you think of my proposition of rearranging the > > > > > template > > > > > a bit (but still defaulting to accelerated mode) ? > > > > > > > > I still think it's a bad idea. In fact I think this template is a bad > > > > idea to begin with. MPlayer has been carefully tuned to choose the best > > > > video output driver by default, setting a default vo overrides this. > > > > > > Sorry, I meant to say "defaulting to autodetection". Can we default to > > > autodetection but first ask the user in a more friendly manner wether she > > > wants to acceleration at all ? (explaining the drawbacks, etc) > > > > I refuse to continue discussing this. You are the one-in-a-million > > special case asking to have his wishes accomodated. Ways to aquire > > screenshots already exist and are clearly documented. I cannot stop > > Andrea from doing this if he should decide so, but I consider it a very > > very bad idea. > > Have you seen Andrea's last mail? We were discussing if we could just > _rise the priority_ of the video output template.
Yes. I repeat (hopefully more clearly): I consider the video output template a very very bad idea. MPlayer has an elaborate system to work out the ideal video output driver on its own that this template overrides for no practical gain. I have personally removed a similar template from the upstream Debian packaging infrastructure and convinced Christian Marillat to do the same. Unfortunately I have been unsuccessful at convincing Andrea. Diego -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
