Loïc Minier wrote:
> I currently see no way to achieve building of gst-ffmpeg in a sane and
> maintainable way, and it seems we are very far from that. Very very
> far.
>
> I don't consider the case of gst-ffmpeg to be in any way similar to
> mplayer's case; xine-lib would be closer. Conside
On Thu, Nov 02, 2006 at 03:17:49PM +0100, Loïc Minier wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 02, 2006, Diego Biurrun wrote:
> > Just to clarify: MPlayer does not contain an embedded fork of FFmpeg,
> > the FFmpeg libraries used in MPlayer are unmodified.
>
> I really fail to see why the same code should be in two
On Thu, Nov 02, 2006, Diego Biurrun wrote:
> Just to clarify: MPlayer does not contain an embedded fork of FFmpeg,
> the FFmpeg libraries used in MPlayer are unmodified.
I really fail to see why the same code should be in two sources then.
The Debian Mplayer packages should simply be uploaded co
On Wed, Nov 01, 2006 at 11:08:19AM +0100, Loïc Minier wrote:
>
> My opinion on this matter was requested, so I'm documenting it here.
> gst-ffmpeg suffers from a very similar problem, since it has an
> embedded fork of ffmpeg.
Just to clarify: MPlayer does not contain an embedded fork of FFmpe
Hi,
My opinion on this matter was requested, so I'm documenting it here.
gst-ffmpeg suffers from a very similar problem, since it has an
embedded fork of ffmpeg. My understanding is that upstream needs more
than ffmpeg's offer in the first place, and also rewrote the build
completely
5 matches
Mail list logo
