Re: mjpegtools 1.9rc1

On Sat, 17 Feb 2007, Mark Nauwelaerts wrote:

> I have given this release candidate a try, and noticed the following
> (all of which equally apply to CVS head):

	That's probably because not much has changed since the release
	candidate was made available ;)

> * building libmpeg2enc fails on Cygwin ...

	And the downside of this is? :) :)

> (and perhaps ??), as mjpegutils is not included in _LIBADD for libmpeg2enc

	No '??' seen yet - seems windows is only (so far) system that can't
	undefined symbols in a shared library.  Other systems don't care
	because you'll simply add -lmjpegutils when linking the final 
	application.

> * there is also a problem building against this release as a library;
> as it does not install 2 header files (mpeg2enc/mpeg2syntaxcodes.h and

	Guess not too many folks have had a need to do this.  I know Andrew
	put a lot of work into the the librarification of mpeg2enc but then
	over the years only a couple people have done anything with it.

> mpeg2enc/imageplanes.hh), see also tracker item on the former header
> [http://sourceforge.net/tracker/index.php?func=detail&aid=1433968&group_id=5776&atid=105776]
	
> A small patch is attached as a possible solution for the above items.

	Ok, installing a couple missing header files will allow the closing
	of the tracker issue.

	And since nothing's harmed by augmenting LIBADD that patch was
	committed as well.

> [some bitpicking; in some cases, gcc might complain about use of the -mcpu flag,
> which seems to come from configure.ac]

	Let it complain - I'm getting tired of second guessing what gcc will
	change from release to release.  When it's a fatal complaint will be
	soon enough to worry about it :-)

> Though I do not know about their full impact, valgrind at least seems to be
> right.  For instance, OnTheFlyPass1::Init chooses whether or not to complain

	I'm going to have to study that a little more.  Maybe ask the author's
	opinion 

> A small hack-fix is attached that mitigates some of these, but that may very
> well not be appropriate or enough (e.g. there is LookaheadRCPass1 and so on as
> well).

	The rate control stuff is operable but was a work in progres that
	never quite completed.  It functions ok but the full functionality
	that was intended is not present/

	Cheers,
	Steven Schultz


-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Take Surveys. Earn Cash. Influence the Future of IT
Join SourceForge.net's Techsay panel and you'll get the chance to share your
opinions on IT & business topics through brief surveys-and earn cash
http://www.techsay.com/default.php?page=join.php&p=sourceforge&CID=DEVDEV