[FFmpeg-devel] c99wrap.exe and c99conv.exe
derek.buitenhuis at gmail.com
Wed Nov 21 21:26:29 CET 2012
On 21/11/2012 3:11 PM, Clément Bœsch wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 21, 2012 at 02:57:22PM -0500, Derek Buitenhuis wrote:
>> On 21/11/2012 2:52 PM, Clément Bœsch wrote:
>>> This is not a trust problem, more a project goal and basic
>>> interrogation, and what's going on with it. It seems you are actually the
>>> person over-thinking and inventing problems here, that's also a bit sad.
>> I assume you meant integration.
> No, I believe it is interrogation/questioning.
>> And all three of the authors have specifically said it is supposed to be generic
>> and any breakage in FFmpeg is considered a bug in the converter. On many occasions.
>> Over many months.
> I didn't really hear that, and maybe that would have applied to the
> project as standalone, not associated with another one, I don't know; the
> question just sounds legitimate to ask to me.
Holy HELL man. Get OVER the fact that it's under the Libav org! Apparently just the fact
that it is there means you can utterly ignore everything that's been said thus far!
IT'S JUST A NAME.
>> This is apparently not enough. So tell me, if it's not a trust issue,
>> (as in you don't believe us), what is it?
> As I said, the URL suggested that maybe this was the c99-to-c89 version
> designed for a specific project (for things that still may not be
> supported in a generic way, I don't know). Please have some tolerance for
> people not following closely the project like me; this libav/c99-to-c89
> could have been a fork from the original project with libav-specific
> things. (How can I word this for the 10th time differently?).
At least read the freaking Github project description or read what's been said before
you go off saying untrue things. Geez! If you don't know WTF is going on, DO NOT COMMENT
IN SUCH A WAY, because you are both uninformed and haven't even bothered to do the VERY
basic research required to make a remotely informed comment.
P.S. c99-to-c89 is regularly being tested with FFmpeg via FATE, and for your information,
several bug fixes were done to c99-to-c89 specifically to fix FFmpeg while I was fixing up
MSVC support in FFmpeg, so I'd hardly call it "unsupported".
Seriously. These 'concerns' are stupid.
> ffmpeg-devel mailing list
> ffmpeg-devel at ffmpeg.org
More information about the ffmpeg-devel