[FFmpeg-devel] [PATCH 3/5] doc/general.texi: remove note about regressed AviSynth+ header

[Stephen Hutchinson]

On 5/3/2019 12:45 PM, Gyan wrote:
> On 3/30/2019 7:39 PM, Stephen Hutchinson wrote:
>>> I've uploaded the amended 1st patch and added a 6th to deal with the 
>>> issues I encountered when testing the 'build FFmpeg with MSVC' 
>>> route.  Since git send-email (or Gmail) screwed up the threading 
>>> when I sent these the first time, this is the proper order:
>>>
>>> http://ffmpeg.org/pipermail/ffmpeg-devel/2019-March/241922.html 
>>> <-fixed header update patch
>>> http://ffmpeg.org/pipermail/ffmpeg-devel/2019-March/241502.html 
>>> <-enabling the additional pix_fmts; nothing has changed on this one
>>> http://ffmpeg.org/pipermail/ffmpeg-devel/2019-March/241507.html 
>>> <-removing the header warning in the docs; nothing has changed on 
>>> this one
>>> http://ffmpeg.org/pipermail/ffmpeg-devel/2019-March/241504.html 
>>> <-updating the project link to point to the AviSynth wiki page on 
>>> AviSynth+; nothing has changed on this one
>>> http://ffmpeg.org/pipermail/ffmpeg-devel/2019-March/241505.html 
>>> <-usage note about 32-bit GCC builds of AviSynth+ and the 
>>> AVSC_WIN32_GCC32 switch; nothing has changed on this one
>>> http://ffmpeg.org/pipermail/ffmpeg-devel/2019-March/241923.html 
>>> <-new (well, technically old) patch to fix FARPROC warnings/build 
>>> errors
> Will apply #3, 4 and 5 with #6.
>
> #2 looks okay to me, but I'm not acquainted enowith Avisynth to ok it. 
> But since you're the maintainer for avisynth.c, do you want me to push 
> them?
>
> Gyan
Yes, go ahead and push all six patches.  #2 is just a simple, direct
mapping of those pix_fmts in AviSynth+ to the equivalent ones
provided by FFmpeg/libavutil.  The longer explanation about
#2 is here:
http://ffmpeg.org/pipermail/ffmpeg-devel/2019-March/241520.html

You didn't mention #1, but #5 (and to a far, far, far lesser extent, #3)
don't make much sense without #1 getting applied.