[FFmpeg-devel] FFmpeg 3.5 / 4.0
jamrial at gmail.com
Fri Apr 13 04:17:51 EEST 2018
On 4/12/2018 9:11 PM, Michael Niedermayer wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 12, 2018 at 07:59:25PM -0300, James Almer wrote:
>> On 4/12/2018 7:53 PM, Michael Niedermayer wrote:
>>> On Mon, Feb 19, 2018 at 02:50:08AM +0100, Michael Niedermayer wrote:
>>>> Its 4 months since 3.4 was branched so its time for a new major release
>>>> Is 4.0 or 3.5 preferred ?
>>>> Any name suggestions ?
>>>> If there are no objections i will likely make that release in the next weeks
>>> more time has passed than intended ...
>>> what issues do remain that need to be fixed before the release ?
>>> I see fate.ffmpeg.org is not looking that well (compared to most
>>> releases in the past) i remember this being pretty much green longer ago
>>> do people want these to be fixed before the release ?
>> I fixed two targets the other day, and another has the patch pending in
>> the ml (OpenBSD).
>> Then there are your FreeBSD clients that you need to
>> switch to yasm,
> I can do that, it doesnt feel right though. configure should not pick
> a nasm that then fails later.
Do you have a suggestion of what kind of configure check could trigger
this failure? As is, all the current checks are succeeding. It's only
failing once it tries to compile the first asm file in the tree.
>> and apply the fix to the c11 check in configure.
> you want me to apply it ?
> or i misunderstand ?
You confirmed it worked ("foo += bar" and "bar = 0" alike), so push
whichever you prefer, yes.
>> The kfreebsd failures are for the tests filter-metadata-silencedetect
>> and checkasm-aacpsdsp. After a recent patch silencedetect prints float
>> values with more precision. Paul said to remove the test and forget
>> about it, but no idea if there's a better solution.
> of course removing the test is the easy solution.
> there is only 1 test for silencedetect, so that would remove not just
> one silencedetect test but all silencedetect tests
> The test currently uses a amrwb test file which is decoded with a
> non bitexact float decoder.
> has someone tried to replace this by bitexact input ?
Do we have a relatively quiet sample using a bitexact codec like this
amrwb one? Or we could convert it to flac and upload it instead.
> ffmpeg-devel mailing list
> ffmpeg-devel at ffmpeg.org
More information about the ffmpeg-devel