Gentoo Forums
Gentoo Forums
Gentoo Forums
Quick Search: in
libav vs ffmpeg
View unanswered posts
View posts from last 24 hours

Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next  
Reply to topic    Gentoo Forums Forum Index Multimedia
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
Shiznitz
Tux's lil' helper
Tux's lil' helper


Joined: 04 Jun 2004
Posts: 106
Location: Northern California

PostPosted: Sun Apr 17, 2011 4:19 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

This is an average user's worst nightmare. I suppose I shouldn't use ~arch to avoid these kinds of things.

There's nothing like updating, seeing blocks with a new package you've never heard of, then doing a search to be led to a finger pointing childish argument between developers.

There must be a reason I don't use my Gentoo install every day......hmm...
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
platojones
Veteran
Veteran


Joined: 23 Oct 2002
Posts: 1554
Location: Just over the horizon

PostPosted: Sun Apr 17, 2011 4:28 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Shiznitz wrote:
This is an average user's worst nightmare. I suppose I shouldn't use ~arch to avoid these kinds of things.

There's nothing like updating, seeing blocks with a new package you've never heard of, then doing a search to be led to a finger pointing childish argument between developers.

There must be a reason I don't use my Gentoo install every day......hmm...


This is not a Gentoo problem per se...it comes with open source in general. Gentoo has taken steps to provide users with the choice of which to go with. No rush or pressure to choose here...for now pick the one that works for you until the situations shakes out.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Shiznitz
Tux's lil' helper
Tux's lil' helper


Joined: 04 Jun 2004
Posts: 106
Location: Northern California

PostPosted: Sun Apr 17, 2011 4:30 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I doubt I would encounter a failure to update (without making a choice) in numerous other distributions. Because of that, it is a Gentoo problem to force this on their users.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
ppurka
Advocate
Advocate


Joined: 26 Dec 2004
Posts: 3206

PostPosted: Sun Apr 17, 2011 4:45 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Shiznitz wrote:
I doubt I would encounter a failure to update (without making a choice) in numerous other distributions. Because of that, it is a Gentoo problem to force this on their users.
If you were using ffmpeg, nothing will force you to "update" to libav. It just doesn't happen that way.

In the future it is conceivable that there might be some package which depends explicitly on libav. In that scenario you will have to make a choice. Even if you were using some other distribution, you will face the same problem in case this happens. As of today, you should be facing no such problems in gentoo, or in any other distribution.
_________________
emerge --quiet redefined | E17 vids: I, II
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Shiznitz
Tux's lil' helper
Tux's lil' helper


Joined: 04 Jun 2004
Posts: 106
Location: Northern California

PostPosted: Sun Apr 17, 2011 6:39 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

According to equery depends virtual/ffmpeg:

app-cdr/k3b-2.0.2-r1 (ffmpeg ? virtual/ffmpeg)
media-libs/xine-lib-1.1.19 (virtual/ffmpeg)
media-plugins/audacious-plugins-2.4.4-r1 (ffmpeg ? virtual/ffmpeg)
media-sound/aqualung-0.9_beta11-r1 (ffmpeg ? virtual/ffmpeg)
media-video/transcode-1.1.5-r2 (virtual/ffmpeg)
media-video/vlc-1.1.8 (ffmpeg ? virtual/ffmpeg)
(vaapi ? virtual/ffmpeg)
So really, my problem is caused by transcode, which is required by k3b, so it was k3b causing the problem. Still, I dislike that these decisions can be made arbitrarily by any particular maintainer and the user is left to sort it out.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
ppurka
Advocate
Advocate


Joined: 26 Dec 2004
Posts: 3206

PostPosted: Mon Apr 18, 2011 2:03 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

What is the problem here? There is no problem at all. All the dependencies are virtual/ffmpeg. :roll:
_________________
emerge --quiet redefined | E17 vids: I, II
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
CypherPipe
n00b
n00b


Joined: 21 Mar 2005
Posts: 8

PostPosted: Mon Apr 18, 2011 4:33 am    Post subject: other distributions and choice Reply with quote

Err, with gentoo the choice is yours. Welcome back. :roll:

If you don't know what you want...

You must have come from somewhere.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
younker
Apprentice
Apprentice


Joined: 18 Feb 2004
Posts: 264
Location: China

PostPosted: Mon Apr 18, 2011 4:41 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I would like to stay with old good ffmpeg for a while now, but I think it's better to have choices.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
sera
Developer
Developer


Joined: 29 Feb 2008
Posts: 993
Location: CET

PostPosted: Mon Apr 18, 2011 5:18 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

ppurka wrote:
What is the problem here? There is no problem at all. All the dependencies are virtual/ffmpeg. :roll:

The virtual has use flags and so it can be tricky to get portage to keep ffmpeg ;)

I also wonder if it's a good idea to favor libav in the virtual. This is what then gives the impression of a forced change and people obviously don't like that.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
audiodef
Watchman
Watchman


Joined: 06 Jul 2005
Posts: 5282

PostPosted: Wed May 04, 2011 2:59 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

In the open-source world, someone is also free to grab the code and say "I'm sick of this bickering, so I've made this software able to use either one! Booya!" :P

Which is what I'm hoping would happen if there comes along a piece of software I really want to use that was caught in this silly cross-fire.
_________________
Gentoo Studio: http://gentoostudio.org
Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/gentoostudio
G+: https://plus.google.com/113947758237122861689/posts
Pappy's Kernel Seeds: http://kernel-seeds.org
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
dufeu
l33t
l33t


Joined: 30 Aug 2002
Posts: 738
Location: US-FL-EST

PostPosted: Sun Jul 31, 2011 12:58 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I'd like to try out both libav and mplayer2. If I've understood everything I've read, then for libav I should:
Code:
# emerge -C ffmpeg
# emerge libav

As far as I can tell, most of what I have currently installed should be fine:
Code:
 # equery d ffmpeg
 * These packages depend on ffmpeg:
app-cdr/k3b-2.0.2-r1 (ffmpeg ? virtual/ffmpeg)
app-misc/strigi-0.7.5-r1 (ffmpeg ? virtual/ffmpeg)
kde-base/ffmpegthumbs-4.7.0 (virtual/ffmpeg)
media-libs/gegl-0.1.6 (ffmpeg ? virtual/ffmpeg)
media-libs/libquicktime-1.2.3 (ffmpeg ? virtual/ffmpeg)
media-libs/wxsvg-1.0.8 (virtual/ffmpeg)
media-libs/xine-lib-1.1.19 (virtual/ffmpeg)
media-plugins/alsa-plugins-1.0.24 (ffmpeg ? virtual/ffmpeg)
media-plugins/audacious-plugins-3.0 (ffmpeg ? media-video/ffmpeg)
media-sound/qmmp-0.5.1 (ffmpeg ? virtual/ffmpeg)
media-sound/sox-14.3.2 (ffmpeg ? virtual/ffmpeg)
media-video/cinelerra-20101104 (virtual/ffmpeg)
media-video/dvd-slideshow-0.8.2.2 (virtual/ffmpeg)
media-video/dvdstyler-1.8.1 (>=media-video/ffmpeg-0.5[encode])
media-video/ffmpeg2theora-0.27 (virtual/ffmpeg)
media-video/ffmpegthumbnailer-2.0.7 (virtual/ffmpeg)
media-video/gpac-0.4.5-r4 (ffmpeg ? virtual/ffmpeg)
media-video/jubler-4.6.1-r3 (>=media-video/ffmpeg-0.4.9_p20080326)
                            (virtual/ffmpeg)
media-video/kino-1.3.4 (virtual/ffmpeg)
media-video/transcode-1.1.5-r2 (virtual/ffmpeg)
media-video/undvd-0.7.5 (ffmpeg ? virtual/ffmpeg)
media-video/videotrans-1.6.0 (virtual/ffmpeg)
media-video/vlc-1.1.11 (ffmpeg ? virtual/ffmpeg)
                       (vaapi ? virtual/ffmpeg)
media-video/x264-encoder-0.0.20110426 (ffmpeg ? virtual/ffmpeg)
net-im/qutecom-2.2_p20110210 (virtual/ffmpeg)
virtual/ffmpeg-0.6.90 (>=media-video/ffmpeg-0.6.90_rc0-r2[X=,encode=,jpeg2k=,mp3=,sdl=,theora=,threads=,vaapi=,vdpau=,x264=])
# equery d libav
 * These packages depend on libav:
virtual/ffmpeg-0.6.90 (>=media-video/libav-0.6.90_rc[X=,encode=,jpeg2k=,mp3=,sdl=,theora=,threads=,vaapi=,vdpau=,x264=])

The potential problem packages here would be 'audacious-plugins-3.0' and 'dvdstyler-1.8.1'. For these packages, I'd still have to create local overlays and change their 'media-video/ffmpeg' dependency to 'virtual/ffmpeg'. Have I understood this correctly? {note 1: I'm almost certain to remove 'dvdstyler' anyway even though there is an open bug# 362129 for migrating it's media-video/ffmpeg dependency to virtual/ffmpeg.} {note 2: For audaciou-plugins, I did notice bug# 361285 - however, this bug appears to be closed without ever changing audacious-plugins ffmpeg dependency to virtual/ffmpeg .. at least according to these equery results.}

As for mplayer2, I'm not sure how to interpret the results of this:
Code:
# equery d mplayer
 * These packages depend on mplayer:
app-misc/anki-1.2.8 (sound ? media-video/mplayer)
media-sound/qmmp-0.5.1 (mplayer ? media-video/mplayer)
media-video/acidrip-0.14-r2 (media-video/mplayer[encode])
media-video/devede-3.16.9 (>=media-video/mplayer-1.0_rc1)
media-video/jubler-4.6.1-r3 (mplayer ? media-video/mplayer[ass])
media-video/kmplayer-0.11.2c (media-video/mplayer)
media-video/ogmrip-0.13.6 (>=media-video/mplayer-1.0_rc2[dvd,encode,xvid?,dts?,x264?])
                          (media-video/mplayer[jpeg])
media-video/smplayer-0.6.9-r1 (media-video/mplayer[ass,png])
media-video/undvd-0.7.5 (media-video/mplayer[encode,dvd,mp3,x264,xvid?])
media-video/videotrans-1.6.0 (media-video/mplayer)
# equery d mplayer2
 * These packages depend on mplayer2:
media-video/smplayer-0.6.9-r1 (media-video/mplayer2[ass,png])

I'm assuming that smplayer will be fine. I'm assuming everything else will be questionable and require my making local overlays to change their ebuild dependencies from 'mplayer' to either/or 'mplayer(2)' as was done for smplayer.

I'm also assuming that where ever I see USE flag 'encode', I need to re-compile that package with USE='-encode' as mplayer2 doesn't support encode. I'm also assuming that, presently, every time I see mplayer updated after a world update, I should manually emerge mplayer2 afterwards just to ensure mplayer2 is actually being used when expected.

Have I understood what I've been reading correctly?
_________________
People whom think M$ is mediocre, don't know the half of it.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
dufeu
l33t
l33t


Joined: 30 Aug 2002
Posts: 738
Location: US-FL-EST

PostPosted: Sun Jul 31, 2011 2:22 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

As an experiment, I tried:
Code:
# emerge -C ffmpeg
# emerge libav
# emerge -pDv @preserved-rebuild

The pertinent piece of the results are:
Code:
  (media-video/ffmpeg-0.7.1::gentoo, ebuild scheduled for merge) pulled in by
    >=media-video/ffmpeg-0.4.9_p20080326 required by (media-video/jubler-4.6.1-r3::gentoo, ebuild scheduled for merge)
    media-video/ffmpeg required by (media-plugins/audacious-plugins-3.0::gentoo, ebuild scheduled for merge)
    >=media-video/ffmpeg-0.6.90_rc0-r2[X,encode,jpeg2k,mp3,sdl,theora,threads,-vaapi,-vdpau,x264] required by (virtual/ffmpeg-0.6.90::gentoo, installed)
    >=media-video/ffmpeg-0.5[encode] required by (media-video/dvdstyler-1.8.1::gentoo, ebuild scheduled for merge)

I didn't do an actual 'emerge @preserved-rebuild'. With my system in the above state and out of curiosity, I did:
Code:
# emerge -pDv mplayer2

The pertinent piece of the results are:
Code:
[blocks B      ] media-video/ffmpeg ("media-video/ffmpeg" is blocking media-video/libav-0.7.1)

 * Error: The above package list contains packages which cannot be
 * installed at the same time on the same system.

  (media-video/ffmpeg-0.7.1::gentoo, ebuild scheduled for merge) pulled in by
    >=media-video/ffmpeg-0.6_p25423[amr,bzip2,dirac,hardcoded-tables,jpeg2k,schroedinger,threads] required by (media-video/mplayer2-2.0_p20110705::multimedia, ebuild scheduled for merge)

My take on all this is that, for me for now, I need to stick with ffmpeg. Trying mplayer2 is still an open question. I may look further at that after I put ffmpeg back.
_________________
People whom think M$ is mediocre, don't know the half of it.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Xywa
l33t
l33t


Joined: 23 Jul 2005
Posts: 836
Location: /mnt/Gentoo/

PostPosted: Fri Jun 22, 2012 8:46 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I have a question - which one will be more supported in Gentoo portage, as for the moment looks like libav?

Example:
ffmpeg
http://ffmpeg.org/

last 2 relased
May, 25, 2012, FFmpeg 0.11
June, 7, 2012, FFmpeg 0.11.1
are still hardmasked in Gentoo:
http://packages.gentoo.org/package/media-video/ffmpeg

libav
http://www.libav.org/

last relase
June 9, 2012, 0.8.3
and 11 days later is aviable in portage
http://packages.gentoo.org/package/media-video/libav
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
bernd_b
Tux's lil' helper
Tux's lil' helper


Joined: 25 Nov 2003
Posts: 147

PostPosted: Fri Jun 22, 2012 9:21 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Well, I guess that is a question of the point of view:

You could say that the ffmpeg-branch in gentoo already dropped the 0.7/8-versions and stick to 0.10/0.11-ones.

What I understood is that the libav-guys stick to 0.8.x because they think the stuff of the higher branches to be too unstable .... At least this is what I get reading something like this:
http://codecs.multimedia.cx/?p=370

Well, not very convincing to me. I understood in the first place that ffmpeg was too restrictive in adding new features because of guidelines concerning the coding which a part of the developers didn't want to accept any more. Therefore the created the new fork libav. Now it is the other way round?!

All I can say is that ffmpeg works for me pretty well and I hope to see missing features in the future. Never understood what libav offers me which ffmpeg cannot.


Last edited by bernd_b on Fri Jul 06, 2012 7:59 pm; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Xywa
l33t
l33t


Joined: 23 Jul 2005
Posts: 836
Location: /mnt/Gentoo/

PostPosted: Fri Jul 06, 2012 7:22 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

The FFmpeg/Libav situation
http://blog.pkh.me/p/13-the-ffmpeg-libav-situation.html
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Ant P.
Advocate
Advocate


Joined: 18 Apr 2009
Posts: 2413
Location: UK

PostPosted: Fri Jul 06, 2012 10:59 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

That article is extremely damning evidence.

  • libav goes out of its way to break backwards compatibility for no reason other than to pretend it has no FFmpeg code and sprang into existence fully formed. FFmpeg implements *both* sets of APIs to avoid screwing over the users. If you're not writing FOSS software primarily for your users, it might as well not exist.
  • FFmpeg merges a lot of downstream changes. libav watches the upstream commits then rewrites them from scratch just so it doesn't have to give credit. This is bullshit and they need to stop acting like 12-year-olds.
  • Using a fork that refuses to merge security patches from upstream in the name of NIH Syndrome is insane. Anyone who admits to doing this belongs on the ricer hall of shame.


What I find even worse is that some of these people are Gentoo devs! Can I no longer trust this distro? It certainly seems that way.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Xywa
l33t
l33t


Joined: 23 Jul 2005
Posts: 836
Location: /mnt/Gentoo/

PostPosted: Sun Jul 08, 2012 10:24 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Ant P. wrote:
What I find even worse is that some of these people are Gentoo devs! Can I no longer trust this distro? It certainly seems that way.


This is very sad but looks like its true.
Gentoo is far behind Arch Linux now if you wish a new ffmpeg or mlt (both for multimedia)

You have got brand new mlt 0.8.0 form 13th of June in Arch (source available from 1st of June) but in Gentoo 6 weeks after new relase we have still an old 0.7.8
On 25th of May it was premiere of ffmpeg 0.11 and few days later 0.11.1, from the 6th of June it is aviable on Arch Linux but on Gentoo (nearly 7 weeks after), its still hard masked...

As you said, looks like some Gentoo developers doesn't like ffmpeg and doesn't like mlt, as their developers said (sorry, not Libav!), so if someone use kdenlive which depends on mlt and ffmpeg, with such situation in next future its probably better to forget about Gentoo and start to think about any less political distro - eg. Arch Linux..
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
khayyam
Advocate
Advocate


Joined: 07 Jun 2012
Posts: 2244

PostPosted: Mon Jul 09, 2012 7:23 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Xywa, Ant P. ...

I think your jumping to conclusions. If comparing Arch to Gentoo then it should be noted that Arch has a completely different policy when it comes to releasing (if infact Arch can be said to have one), your assumption is that that there is somekind of "politics" or "policy" relating to ffmpeg being masked, and that this "politics" somehow relates to there being Gentoo developers who are involved with libav. Some of this is fact, but your conclusions are only speculative, there are any number of reasons why a package can be masked, and I imagine that the additional work involved in supporting virtual/ffmpeg is a more probable cause.

Also, look at the commits for media-video/ffmpeg and corrolate this with those involved with libav, I don't see any of the latter as having anything to do with the package, so in the absence of facts I'm prepared to assume that there is no "politics" involved, only time constraints.

As for the initial question: I stuck with ffmpeg, having tested libav and found it somewhat poor performance wise (playing matroska ecapsulated h264 was particularly bad, with ffmpeg handling the same files without jitters). I don't think that the split is a good thing, particularly for users, but I'm not really party to all the facts and so I'm not going to blame one side or other (even when reports seem to suggest some folly), its not going to help if this is personalised (particularly if there is going to be some means of settling the rift), in the end, and however unfortunate, I'm satisfied I can at least choose which to install.

best ... khay
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Spidey
Apprentice
Apprentice


Joined: 07 Sep 2006
Posts: 264

PostPosted: Tue Jul 10, 2012 1:36 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I really liked that at first libav cleaned the options accepted by ffmpeg, to make the commands look a little less confusing.
How is that currently? Did the ffmpeg devs ported libav commits back to ffmpeg too? I'm willing to keep running with the tested and true ffmpeg, but I like the bleeding edge and revolutionary spirit of libav.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
khayyam
Advocate
Advocate


Joined: 07 Jun 2012
Posts: 2244

PostPosted: Tue Jul 10, 2012 4:21 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Spidey wrote:
I really liked that at first libav cleaned the options accepted by ffmpeg, to make the commands look a little less confusing.

Spidey .. yes, and they also fixed (or removed) the TEXTRELS, which is also an improvement (though this may be the reason for the poor preformance outlined above).

best ... khay
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
bernd_b
Tux's lil' helper
Tux's lil' helper


Joined: 25 Nov 2003
Posts: 147

PostPosted: Tue Jul 10, 2012 1:59 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Spidey wrote:
Did the ffmpeg devs ported libav commits back to ffmpeg too? I'm willing to keep running with the tested and true ffmpeg, but I like the bleeding edge and revolutionary spirit of libav.


Believing the homepage ffmpeg.org, ffmpeg 0.76 and 0.85 contain all changes from libav.org 0.72. As far as I can see, libav has no major releases with higer numbers, ffmpeg got 0.11 on top.

So what are those "bleeding edge" features of libav comming from their "revolutionary spirit" which ffmpeg doesn't offer? I never got a example from a user point of view.
If it helps to prevent murder, the can split the project into seven forks. But as time goes by I really would like to understand what is the result of this revolutionary spirit.

Again: Is there anything in libav working which we are missing in ffmpeg?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Spidey
Apprentice
Apprentice


Joined: 07 Sep 2006
Posts: 264

PostPosted: Tue Jul 10, 2012 6:47 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I didn't want to cause any flaming, that was just my first impression at the time of the fork.
Right now, since ffmpeg is following libav patches and has shifted up activity-wise, I guess it has improved over libav.

This is just the opinion of a user who doesn't follow mailing lists and the community activity.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
MarekSieradzki
n00b
n00b


Joined: 05 Oct 2010
Posts: 18

PostPosted: Fri Aug 03, 2012 7:10 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

As a coder I'd say that there are things that you don't notice that easily. Most of all it's code quality and review process. As far as I understand libav split was caused because ffmpeg started to include half-assed code.

Quote:
FFmpeg merges a lot of downstream changes. libav watches the upstream commits then rewrites them from scratch just so it doesn't have to give credit. This is bullshit and they need to stop acting like 12-year-olds.

If you hadn't noticed people that control fork can do whatever they want.

Open Source has tendency of generating complete children at the top of the project and keeping them there far too long.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
bernd_b
Tux's lil' helper
Tux's lil' helper


Joined: 25 Nov 2003
Posts: 147

PostPosted: Fri Aug 03, 2012 7:41 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

O.K., assuming libav code makes all the effort to gain a better "code quality" - still I never heard of any advantage which came out of this.

And again: Aren't there still ffmpeg branches like 0.8 etc for those who don't like the newer features ?

Please don't get me wrong: I really would like to appreciate the work of libav - but I still don't get the point.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
joecool
n00b
n00b


Joined: 31 Aug 2004
Posts: 27

PostPosted: Fri Sep 07, 2012 2:44 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Xywa's link really explains the situation better than this will, the log some might find enlightening.

Libav really deceived the community which is unacceptable. There were valid concerns to fork, but they didn't fork. Instead they claimed that they ejected the main ffmpeg developer and that their project was the rightful project. Their website contained no mention of it being a fork of the original ffmpeg project and instead duped users into thinking it was a rename of the ffmpeg project. Indeed after it happened I was one of the users going "wtf is this libav when commits are still being actively made to ffmpeg???".

I'll let the log speak for itself (this is from April 8, 2011 in #ffmpeg when I contacted lu_zero about maintenance issues on the ffmpeg live ebuild):

Code:

Apr 08 16:22:33 <joecool>       lu_zero: are we dropping the ball on ffmpeg support in gentoo? the live ebuild has been broken for over a week now
Apr 08 16:55:15 <lu_zero>       joecool: uh?
Apr 08 16:58:44 <lu_zero>       joecool: what's broken exactly?
Apr 08 16:59:51 <joecool>       lu_zero: the ebuild has not been maintained, configure options have changed for ffmpeg and not been updated in the ebuild
Apr 08 17:01:29 <joecool>       i'm just trying to figure out if gentoo is phasing out ffmpeg in place of libav
Apr 08 17:01:41 <lu_zero>       joecool: I'm a libav developer
Apr 08 17:01:47 <joecool>       lu_zero: I'm aware
Apr 08 17:01:52 <joecool>       and a gentoo developer
Apr 08 17:02:04 <lu_zero>       as gentoo we keep both since we like to give options
Apr 08 17:02:42 <joecool>       that is my concern, the inclusion of libav into portage is fine so long as ffmpeg doesn't become neglected in the process
Apr 08 17:03:16 <lu_zero>       joecool: I think a live ebuild that is hard masked is supposed to break now and then
Apr 08 17:03:21 <joecool>       futhermore, I've yet to be able to find a solid list of differences between the two projects so that I can decide which I will continue to use
Apr 08 17:04:45 <lu_zero>       if you use libav it is supported and used directly by me, it will get first my changes regarding streaming protocols, ronald improvements on vpx, mru optimizations for arm and such
Apr 08 17:05:23 <joecool>       lu_zero: what's the story with ffmpeg-mt? is that where the mutual differences came about?
Apr 08 17:05:33 <laveur>        I thought FFMPEG was just a front end to using libav*
Apr 08 17:05:52 <lu_zero>       we actively merged -mt pieces since the demotion of michael
Apr 08 17:06:01 <lu_zero>       and we keep doing that and tracking regression
Apr 08 17:06:03 <joecool>       ok so that was pre-fork?
Apr 08 17:06:13 <lu_zero>       currently ronald is working on fixing h264-mt
Apr 08 17:06:23 <lu_zero>       and I changed fate to track -mt issues
Apr 08 17:06:34 <lu_zero>       if that part is interesting for you
Apr 08 17:07:27 <lu_zero>       -mt is something quite invasive and requires a bit of attention so we started merging it little by little and we keep mergin it little by little
Apr 08 17:08:02 <iive>  joecool: ffmpeg merges all good changes from other forks. you won't miss anything from libav or -mt.
Apr 08 17:08:50 <joecool>       so libav is intending to merge the changes as well?
Apr 08 17:09:37 <lu_zero>       iive: you mean randomly pull and then complain
Apr 08 17:09:40 <lu_zero>       and you know it
Apr 08 17:11:11 <michaelni>     ffmpeg merges libav and ffmpeg-mt daily + bugfixes + more features
Apr 08 17:11:53 <michaelni>     so you should have all of lu_zero and ronalds work in there too (at max 24h later)
Apr 08 17:12:36 <lu_zero>       ahahha
Apr 08 17:12:40 *       lu_zero (~lu_zero@gentoo/developer/lu-zero) has left #ffmpeg
Apr 08 17:13:19 <bcoudurier>    lu_zero, libav misses a lot of bug fixes
Apr 08 17:13:24 <bcoudurier>    and you know it
Apr 08 17:13:25 *       joecool facepalms
Apr 08 17:13:33 <iive>  joecool: this illustrates the problems with libav
Apr 08 17:13:47 <joecool>       yes and it's now become a gentoo conflict of interest too
Apr 08 17:14:32 <michaelni>     and about "we actively merged -mt pieces" ...
Apr 08 17:14:38 <iive>  beandog is also gentoo developer.
Apr 08 17:14:42 <michaelni>     i did that work if iam not mistaken



Note, they don't mention a fork. They mention "demotion of micheal", not forking.

IMHO, having used both projects I will stay with ffmpeg. They get the latest features + security fixes + bugfixes from libav, and aren't constantly trying to rewrite patches and potentially introducing unnecessary breakage. I'm all for gentoo providing the choice between the two packages, so long as it's an informed one, and as noted above, there is a potential conflict of interest in which gentoo *could* promote libav over ffmpeg. I'm happy to see it hasn't happened in the past year.

(of course they could pull a debian/ubuntu as well and claim ffmpeg is deprecated and libav is the replacement)

TL;DR Libav is a failed coup d'état of the ffmpeg project that fails to recognize the existence of the ffmpeg project and has a nice propaganda campaign going on saying otherwise.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Reply to topic    Gentoo Forums Forum Index Multimedia All times are GMT
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next
Page 2 of 5

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum