[FFmpeg-devel] [PATCH v6] libx264: Set min build version to 158

[Soft Works]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: ffmpeg-devel <ffmpeg-devel-bounces at ffmpeg.org> On Behalf Of Marton
> Balint
> Sent: Thursday, June 9, 2022 8:44 PM
> To: FFmpeg development discussions and patches <ffmpeg-devel at ffmpeg.org>
> Subject: Re: [FFmpeg-devel] [PATCH v6] libx264: Set min build version to 158
> 
> 
> 
> On Wed, 8 Jun 2022, Soft Works wrote:
> 
> >>> -                               { require libx264 "stdint.h x264.h"
> >> x264_encoder_encode "-lx264 $pthreads_extralibs $libm_extralibs" &&
> >>> -                                 warn "using libx264 without pkg-
> config";
> >> } } &&
> >>
> >> x264 without pkg-config feature got removed. If this is intentonal,
> >> then maybe you should mention this in the commit message?
> >
> > I cannot honestly say that I would be sure about this part. Matt had
> > this removed in his original patch and objections were made about the
> version
> > requirement, but none about the removal of the "non-pkg-config" condition.
> >
> > Would there be any reasons to keep it?
> 
> Probably not. Removing it is fine by me, but the removal should be
> stated in the commit message.

Yup. Done.



> >>> -                             require_cpp_condition libx264 x264.h
> >> "X264_BUILD >= 118" &&
> >>> -                             check_cpp_condition libx262 x264.h
> >> "X264_MPEG2"
> >>
> >> Why is the x262 check got silently removed? This does not seem to belong
> >> to this commit.`
> >
> > Matt had removed it and there was a comment about it saying that it
> > would by dysfunctional for a long time already.
> >
> > By a funny coincidence, Gyan has submitted a patch for complete removal
> > of this:
> >
> > https://patchwork.ffmpeg.org/project/ffmpeg/patch/20220527082922.994-1-
> ffmpeg at gyani.pro/
> >
> > Whether it belongs into this patch or not could be seen from two sides:
> >
> > On one side, you could say that THIS patch is about updating and adapting
> > the x264 conditions to the state of time, but you could also say that
> > it must rather be in Gyan's patch (which it is anyway).
> >
> > Just let me know when you think I should change it.
> 
> I'd rather keep the X262 cpp check for now.

Ok agreed. The situation is not fully clear to me after re-reading Kieran's 
response to Gyan's patch.

Thanks,
sw