On Thu, 12 Feb 2009 13:44:25 -0500 Brad <b...@comstyle.com> wrote: > On Thursday 12 February 2009 00:47:44 Damien Miller wrote: > > On Wed, 11 Feb 2009, Brad wrote: > > > I already have proper updates for both pending. > > > > Unless I'm looking in the wrong place, your ffmpeg update doesn't > > actually update ffmpeg. It just adjusts the dependency on x264. > > That is only the x264 update. I'm not posting both updates at the > same time. It is hard enough getting people to test never mind trying > to get people to test with multiple overlapping diffs. > > > Your x264 update doesn't fix version.sh. It still uses bashisms and > > depends on git (+ possible network access) at build time. > > That stuff is not new and the use of git is optional. Anyway I > updated what is on my webserver. I haven't bothered to keep that in > sync since no one has tested what was there (or bothered to say > anything).
http://comstyle.com/x264/ Today I got a shinny new Logitech QuickCam Pro 9000 (video(4)) but getting it to play nice with ffmpeg on -stable has yielded no joy. The issue seems to be the video4linux2 support on the -stable port, so I'm putting together a(nother) -current box for testing. For me, having a newer ffmpeg playing correctly (pun intended) with our sys/videoio.h for video4linux2 support is important. If Brad has finished ffmpeg update patches pending and ready for testing, it makes more sense test them at the same time with the x264 updates, rather than doing the same thing Damien did. Also, in Brad's x264 update post, he mentioned wanting to test on macppc due to Altivec issues. I've got an ancient Power Macintosh G3 (300MHz) sitting in my garage which might still work, but I don't know if it would be a worthy test box for potential Altivec issues? -- J.C. Roberts
