[FFmpeg-devel] [PATCH] remove MSVC-specific
Tue Mar 11 15:39:11 CET 2008
On Tue, Mar 11, 2008 at 4:18 PM, Michel Bardiaux <mbardiaux at mediaxim.be> wrote:
> Reimar D?ffinger wrote:
> > On Tue, Mar 11, 2008 at 02:39:01PM +0100, Michel Bardiaux wrote:
> >> Michael Niedermayer wrote:
> >>> On Sun, Mar 09, 2008 at 03:53:27PM +0100, Reimar D?ffinger wrote:
> >>>> On Sun, Mar 09, 2008 at 01:47:25PM +0100, Michael Niedermayer wrote:
> >>>>> Also i assume that whoever wrote the 2 lines had tested them so i would guess
> >>>>> they are more likely correct than not.
> >>>> History proves that not (the ifdef was wrong sometime in-between) ;-)
> >>>>> And yes, i also would appreciate if we had some maintainer for MSVC related
> >>>>> hunks.
> >>>> And my main intention was to get some of those complainers (even if
> >>>> their complaining is justified) to do something.
> >>> Hmm if you think that breaking MSVC is effective in raising a volunteer
> >>> for MSVC maintaince then by all means go ahead with the ritual.
> >> Probably the reverse: it will reinforce the feeling (whether justified
> >> or not) that submitting contributions for MSVC support is pointless
> >> because they would be either rejected at once, or savaged later, by
> >> MS-bashers (of which there is certainly no lack here).
> > I do not know who you think of, but if you haven't noticed gcc,
> > binutils, Solaris userland, OS/2 all have received similar levels of
> > flames (and in the case of OS/2 IIRC much harder to reimplement code was
> > removed than this MSVC stuff).
> I remember vividly when building with Mingw got you the message ?se a
> real OS"every time you used ffmpeg...
> > Also IIRC for OS/2 things moved much more
> > smoothly after people stopped insisting on ugly hacks.
> > And even ICC support was not done in one step or even one day, and
> > involved its share of flames.
> > Sure, as a MSVC user expect to need a thicker skin for several reasons,
> > but I think we have proven often enough that clean patches will get
> > accepted even for a feature considered "useless" by most, though opinions
> > of what is clean may differ.
> > Maybe I missed something, but so far I have only seen people arguing for
> > the MSVC stuff without any specific arguments, I can not even remember
> > saying _explicitly_ that they use that code (though it is quite possible
> > that they meant to say that).
> > And lastly: if there are more than a handful MSVC users, you also have
> > the option of doing a fork and keeping it up to date, thereby proving
> > that there are people willing to maintain that stuff and it is mot much
> > effort to maintain.
> You know perfectly well its not really an option, because under the
> rules of the ffmpeg lists, the fork would have to do *all* the support
> for its users. Not just support of the parts not in the mainstream svn.
> > But from my point of view the situation seems a lot like with releases:
> > lots of complaining, little work actually done.
And how about getting some MSVC patches, while there is good will about them.
More information about the ffmpeg-devel