ffmpeg

[Dennis Veatch]

On Friday 25 May 2007 02:00:04 am samuel wrote:
> just a suggestion...
>
> 07:57 |     ElAngelo | hmmm
> 07:57 |     ElAngelo | can we remove the ffmpeg module?
> 07:57 |     ElAngelo | it does not compile
> 07:57 |     ElAngelo | it is not supported by the devs
> 07:57 |     ElAngelo | they suggest you to either use a snapshot or to
> download the svn repositroy...
> 07:58 |     ElAngelo | what if we download a snapshot and keep that one as
> the 'stable' version on the lunar mirrors?
> 07:58 |     ElAngelo | we add an %FFMPEG alias to both ffmpeg(snapshot) and
>                        ffmpeg(svn) ?
> 07:59 |     ElAngelo | the snapshot would only be updated when we feel like
>                        it... (2x a year? )
> 07:59 |     ElAngelo | the svn is for those that like bleeding things...
>
>
> gr,S.


I don't have a problem with that. There at least two apps I know of (kino and 
kdenlive) that require a relatively new version of ffmpeg to even compile and 
install. I suspect there will be more as time passes. The kino folks were 
kindly enough to package some svn version of ffmpeg so that became a 
non-issue.  

I have been running ffmpeg-svn for months and vlc, amarok, gst-plugins to name 
of few have had few issues with it. Just for grins I have been running a lin 
on it at least 3 times a week and have only encountered minor issues.

At one point they did change some of the ./confiugre switches (minor). And at 
one other time vlc would crap out on an error (I forget exactly) that others 
had that they believed was a gcc issue but a later svn version eliminated 
that problem. 

Over all I have to say the statement the ffmpeg folks make on their website 
(paraphrased) that their svn version is pretty damn stable, is well, pretty 
damn accurate. Given my experience so far with it, it is puzzling why they 
are so anti-don't-ask-for-a-final-version-we'll-do-it-when-we-do-it.

-- 
Dennis
You can tuna piano but you can't tune a fish.

http://www.lunar-linux.org/
It's worth the spin.