Re: Is ffmpeg 0.7.-44.rc1 compatible?

On Sat, Jun 11, 2011 at 2:44 PM, Axel Thimm <[email protected]> wrote:

> On Sat, 2011-06-11 at 07:17 -0300, Paulo Cavalcanti wrote:
> > On Sat, Jun 11, 2011 at 3:46 AM, Axel Thimm <[email protected]>
> > wrote:
> >         On Fri, 2011-06-10 at 14:39 -0300, Paulo Cavalcanti wrote:
> >         > I have on my system ffmpeg 0.6.3.
> >         I this the snapshot that ATrpms was shipping, or the real
> >         thing?
> >
> > Is 0.6.3 from ATrpms. I am kind of lost here. Why do we have 3
> > versions in the repo?
>
> Because different parts of ATrpms were built against different versions.
> For example there was this issue with libavcore where you provided an
> old lib for someone on RHEL something. The old (compatibility) libs need
> to get phased out, of course, but this need to done at a safe pace.
>
> I also like to keep a couple of old versions around for users to be able
> to downgrade to a previous version in case they encounter an issue. This
> makes debugging easier.
>
> Note that 0.6.3 and 0.7rc1 at ATrpms were built simultaneously, and
> therefore 0.6.3 have never been actually used in any build.
>
> > If I compile audacious myself with 0.6.3 installed, it works.
> >
> > If I download it from ATrpms or build it with mock, I get the reported
> > error (mock should pick 0.7, right?).
>
> Yes, I wonder why you did get 0.6.3 at all. As said the two packages
> came simultaneously, so any build should by default only see 0.7rc1. I
> built 0.6.3 as a possible fallback in case 0.7rc1 messes things up, but
> things look OK.
>
>
Because I chose to remove 0.7 and install 0.6.3.
I understand the need of keeping 0.6.1, but since you have never used rc1
for ffmeg
(only git-date), I thought it was some version intended to testing/bleeding
that slipped into stable. My fault ...

Anyway, the official version is 0.7 and 0.6.3 is not intended for
production, right?


Thanks.


-- 
Paulo Roma Cavalcanti
LCG - UFRJ