[FFmpeg-devel] [PATCH] Make ff* recognize ------long-gnu-options

Baptiste Coudurier baptiste.coudurier
Tue Dec 15 01:43:37 CET 2009

On 12/14/2009 04:29 PM, M?ns Rullg?rd wrote:
> Rodney Baker<rodney.baker at iinet.net.au>  writes:
>> On Tue, 15 Dec 2009 10:21:31 Stefano Sabatini wrote:
>>> On date Monday 2009-12-14 01:28:06 +0100, Michael Niedermayer encoded:
>>>> On Sun, Dec 13, 2009 at 07:00:48PM +0100, Stefano Sabatini wrote:
>>>>> Hi, I don't know if skipping an undeterminated number of '-' is a
>>>>> misfeature but was easy to implement and I find it quite funny to run
>>>>> ffmpeg ------------------help, we can reduce the number of skipped '-'
>>>>> to 2 if requested.
>>>>> Patches attached.
>>>> I agree that this is funny but i think it does little good ...
>>>> it could confuse people and scripts could become dependant on it and then
>>>> we cant even remove it wihout pissing people off.
>>> So what about to accept at least both -foo and --foo options?
>>> [..]
>> Pardon me for butting in (I'm usually only an interested observer on this
>> list) but wouldn't it be better to stick to the normally accepted convention
>> of -f (short option) or --foo (long option) (remembering of course that not
>> every short option necessarily has a matching long option and vice versa)?
>> Having it behave the same as other GNU/Linux apps makes things much
>> easier to remember, especially when scripting.
> There are many apps that do not follow that style.  Examples include
> all the traditional X utilities.  Imagemagick also comes to mind.
> I see no reason whatsoever to change the existing syntax of FFmpeg.

On a side not, I think many users would like position independant options.

Key fingerprint                 8D77134D20CC9220201FC5DB0AC9325C5C1ABAAA
FFmpeg maintainer                                  http://www.ffmpeg.org

More information about the ffmpeg-devel mailing list