Mailing List Archive: atrpms: devel

Is ffmpeg 0.7.-44.rc1 compatible?

Index | Next | Previous | View Threaded

promac at gmail

Jun 10, 2011, 10:39 AM

Post #1 of 6 (856 views)
Permalink

Is ffmpeg 0.7.-44.rc1 compatible?

Hi,

I have on my system ffmpeg 0.6.3.

When I tried to execute audacious 2.5.1 from ATrpms blleding, I get:

audacious: relocation error: /usr/lib64/audacious/Input/ffaudio.so: symbol
av_register_protocol2, version LIBAVFORMAT_52 not defined in file
libavformat.so.52 with link time reference

I suppose audacious has been linked against 0.7 rc1, right? Is it
incompatible with the 0.6 series?

Thanks.

--
Paulo Roma Cavalcanti
LCG - UFRJ

Axel.Thimm at ATrpms

Jun 10, 2011, 11:46 PM

Post #2 of 6 (816 views)
Permalink

Re: Is ffmpeg 0.7.-44.rc1 compatible? [In reply to]

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?

> When I tried to execute audacious 2.5.1 from ATrpms blleding, I get:
>
> audacious: relocation error: /usr/lib64/audacious/Input/ffaudio.so:
> symbol av_register_protocol2, version LIBAVFORMAT_52 not defined in
> file libavformat.so.52 with link time reference
>
> I suppose audacious has been linked against 0.7 rc1, right? Is it
> incompatible with the 0.6 series?

0.7 is a rebranding of what was previously in ATrpms as a 0.6.x snapshot
for several months, so the previous ffmpeg support in ATrpms is probably
much closer to 0.7 than 0.6.3.

But I guess testing it in the field will really prove whether it is
compatible or not.
--
http://thimm.gr/ - http://ATrpms.net/

Attachments:

signature.asc (0.19 KB)

promac at gmail

Jun 11, 2011, 3:17 AM

Post #3 of 6 (820 views)
Permalink

Re: Is ffmpeg 0.7.-44.rc1 compatible? [In reply to]

On Sat, Jun 11, 2011 at 3:46 AM, Axel Thimm <Axel.Thimm [at] atrpms> 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?

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?).

Why am I not using 0.7? Because as soon as I installed it, mplayer, which I
used for watching analog TV,
started to freeze my computer. Maybe it was just a coincidence, because I
live near the ocean, and my computer
was completed corroded by humidity and salt.

Anyway, I ended up replacing my mobo, processor, and video card, and the
computer is stable again,
but I am still using 0.6.3, just for safety ...

Does the libavformat error mean anything to you?

--
Paulo Roma Cavalcanti
LCG - UFRJ

Axel.Thimm at ATrpms

Jun 11, 2011, 10:44 AM

Post #4 of 6 (821 views)
Permalink

Re: Is ffmpeg 0.7.-44.rc1 compatible? [In reply to]

On Sat, 2011-06-11 at 07:17 -0300, Paulo Cavalcanti wrote:
> On Sat, Jun 11, 2011 at 3:46 AM, Axel Thimm <Axel.Thimm [at] atrpms>
> 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.

> Why am I not using 0.7? Because as soon as I installed it, mplayer,
> which I used for watching analog TV,
> started to freeze my computer. Maybe it was just a coincidence,
> because I live near the ocean, and my computer
> was completed corroded by humidity and salt.

It must have been a coincidence, because mplayer is not using the
external ffmpeg, it uses a bundled one.

> Anyway, I ended up replacing my mobo, processor, and video card, and
> the computer is stable again,
> but I am still using 0.6.3, just for safety ...
>
>
> Does the libavformat error mean anything to you?

You mean the missing symbol? It is as you had written, audacious-plugins
had been built against 0.7rc1 and didn't like that some
symbols/resources were not present anymore.
--
http://thimm.gr/ - http://ATrpms.net/

Attachments:

signature.asc (0.19 KB)

promac at gmail

Jun 11, 2011, 11:18 AM

Post #5 of 6 (814 views)
Permalink

Re: Is ffmpeg 0.7.-44.rc1 compatible? [In reply to]

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

> On Sat, 2011-06-11 at 07:17 -0300, Paulo Cavalcanti wrote:
> > On Sat, Jun 11, 2011 at 3:46 AM, Axel Thimm <Axel.Thimm [at] atrpms>
> > 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

Axel.Thimm at ATrpms

Jun 14, 2011, 1:19 AM

Post #6 of 6 (813 views)
Permalink

Re: Is ffmpeg 0.7.-44.rc1 compatible? [In reply to]

On Sat, 2011-06-11 at 15:18 -0300, Paulo Cavalcanti wrote:
> Anyway, the official version is 0.7 and 0.6.3 is not intended for
> production, right?

Well, official as in currently-used-in-ATrpms. It seems to work well
under all F15 related bits, but OTOH not everything has been rebuilt
against ffmpeg 0.7, yet. The list of packages *directly* built on ffmpeg
is:

audacious-plugins.spec
avifile.spec
blender.spec
cinelerra.spec
gst-ffmpeg-0.10.6.spec
gstreamer-ffmpeg.spec
gstreamer-vaapi.spec
kradio4.spec
libquicktime.spec
motion.spec
mpd.spec
transcode.spec
vlc.spec
xine-lib.spec
xvidcap.spec
--
http://thimm.gr/ - http://ATrpms.net/

Attachments:

signature.asc (0.19 KB)

Index | Next | Previous | View Threaded

Interested in having your list archived? Contact Gossamer Threads