[FFmpeg-devel] patch for x32 for libpostproc
michaelni at gmx.at
Thu Sep 4 16:30:14 CEST 2014
On Thu, Sep 04, 2014 at 03:53:55PM +0200, wm4 wrote:
> On Wed, 3 Sep 2014 23:33:48 -0400
> Reinhard Tartler <siretart at gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Wed, Sep 3, 2014 at 9:34 PM, Michael Niedermayer <michaelni at gmx.at> wrote:
> > > On Wed, Sep 03, 2014 at 08:22:43PM -0400, Reinhard Tartler wrote:
> > >> On Wed, Sep 3, 2014 at 9:39 AM, Michael Niedermayer <michaelni at gmx.at> wrote:
> > >> > On Tue, Sep 02, 2014 at 10:06:10PM +0000, Thorsten Glaser wrote:
> > >> >> Hi,
> > >> >>
> > >> >> as discussed in IRC, I was trying to minimal-invasively port
> > >> >> libpostproc (the Debian source package) to x32¹. I could not
> > >> >> test it (for lack of a stand-alone test program) yet, but at
> > >> >> least I got it to build.
> > >> >
> > >> > you could try to test by buiding ffmpeg as a whole but disable asm
> > >> > everywhere except libpostproc
> > >> > that might allow "easy" testing though fate or ffmpeg with libavfilter
> > >>
> > >> Is http://git.videolan.org/?p=libpostproc.git still maintained?
> > >
> > > AFAIK, no, it seems the last commit is 2 years ago
> > >
> > >
> > >>
> > >> The Debian package tracks that repository, and ideally we could
> > >> collect the postproc patches there.
> > >
> > > libpostproc was and is maintained in
> > > git://source.ffmpeg.org/ffmpeg.git
> > So the promise given in
> > https://lists.libav.org/pipermail/libav-devel/2012-February/020712.html
> > doesn't hold anymore?
> > Any chance to make you reconsider reviving the standalone libpostproc.git?
> Yes, let me add my protest against this bullshit of still maintaining
> libpostproc as part of ffmpeg.git in FFmpeg.
Can you elaborate / explain why 14496-2 Part 2: Visual Annex F.3
"Postprocessing for Coding Noise Reduction"
(which is about half of what libpostproc is)
Aka a part of the implementation of the MPEG4 ASP video specification
is insane to maintain in the same git repository as the
MPEG4 ASP video decoder and encoder ?
Iam not saying iam against it, just that it seems very strange to me
If people want we could revive libpostproc.git, it just seemed easier
to me if people use libpostproc from FFmpeg
Michael GnuPG fingerprint: 9FF2128B147EF6730BADF133611EC787040B0FAB
It is what and why we do it that matters, not just one of them.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Size: 181 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
More information about the ffmpeg-devel