[FFmpeg-devel] c99wrap.exe and c99conv.exe
ubitux at gmail.com
Wed Nov 21 21:38:17 CET 2012
On Wed, Nov 21, 2012 at 03:26:29PM -0500, Derek Buitenhuis wrote:
> 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.
Maybe I didn't understood your first misunderstanding?
> >> 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.
I understood your answer from your first reply. The debate just moved to
why you are so angry and me trying to explain why we asked. Don't get me
wrong, I'm not trying to get any further information about the goal of the
project since a while now.
> >> 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.
A forked version of the original project might have kept the original
> 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.
Again, I have my answer. Though, I don't get why you are so outraged for…
> 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".
That's certainly true for the "independent" version of the project, that
was not so obvious when tied with another project.
(Don't try to tell me again that's where it's officially distributed, it's
OK, I got it you know).
> Seriously. These 'concerns' are stupid.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Size: 490 bytes
Desc: not available
More information about the ffmpeg-devel