[FFmpeg-devel] [PATCH 1/2] avcodec: Add interface to motion estimation

[shen long]

I'm sorry to bother you, but that's not how I see it. In fact this is
the output of the fffmpeg binary I was using for about a year and a
half.

----------
# ffmpeg
ffmpeg version 0.8.6-4:0.8.6-0ubuntu0.12.04.1, Copyright (c) 2000-2013
the Libav developers
  built on Apr  2 2013 17:00:59 with gcc 4.6.3
*** THIS PROGRAM IS DEPRECATED ***
This program is only provided for compatibility and will be removed in
a future release. Please use avconv instead.
Hyper fast Audio and Video encoder
usage: ffmpeg [options] [[infile options] -i infile]... {[outfile
options] outfile}...

Use -h to get full help or, even better, run 'man ffmpeg'
----------

You're not being honest to yourself, it was a war because of conflicting names.

Distributions made a political decision, what Debian did was purely
political. Although their biggest mistake was completely ruin the
cdrtools package, making burning in Linux an unbearable pain.

So think about it, you're betraying libav by supporting ffmpeg. There
is a reason why libav has been ignoring almost completely ffmpeg.
Basically their users have forced them to pick some ffmpeg code, it
was not their free will.

And as a user may libav RIP.

On 9/1/15, wm4 <nfxjfg at googlemail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, 1 Sep 2015 10:11:14 -0500
> shen long <wdlkmpx at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> This discussion again hehe. I'm just a user and I don't think a
>> reunification is possible, I was reading the gentoo forums and it
>
> If you think that, keep it to yourself.
>
> What the hell do you think we're trying to do? The split development is
> bad for everyone. It can't continue like this. It needs to be resolved.
> Everyone should make an effort to make it possible.
>
>> became a flame war between users, most of them bashing Libav. Though I
>> like the name "libav" better.
>>
>> https://forums.gentoo.org/viewtopic-t-1010096.html
>>
>> The way Libav started, it was clear that it was not a fork, but a
>> replacement, something meant to put and end to ffmpeg immediately, so
>> it needed a purely political position. A fork must rename its
>> applications AND libraries, so both original and deritive works can
>> coexist peacefully and users can choose what is best for them.
>
> No. It consisted of developers who wanted to develop, not fight against
> the utterly broken maintenance and development practices that ruled
> FFmpeg at the time. (It has gotten a little bit better since then. For
> example, when Libav started doing proper releases, FFmpeg followed
> suite in reaction.)
>
> By the way, most of the "outside" discussions I've read about FFmpeg
> vs. Libav are just nonsensical. I suggest not taking them as a real
> source of information.
> _______________________________________________
> ffmpeg-devel mailing list
> ffmpeg-devel at ffmpeg.org
> http://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-devel
>