[MPlayer-users] rant

Felix Buenemann atmosfear at users.sourceforge.net
Tue Oct 9 11:00:07 CEST 2001

On Monday, 8. October 2001 15:24, Stephen Davies wrote:
> On Mon, 8 Oct 2001, Dariusz Pietrzak wrote:
> > > This is obviously not the case, because MPlayer 0.50 compiled with gcc
> > > 2.96 works very well on my Mandrake 8.1. I tested it on 20-25
> > > differents
> >
> > And on 20-25 different hardware configurations and libs versions?
> > If so,
> > Please send full raport about combinations that work.
> He's not making a point in favour of a binary distribution.  He's making a
> point that 2.96 builds a working mplayer.
which doesn't mean it'll work on all systems, but the current configure 
question-asnwer stuff is indeed overkill.
> Surely all that is required is a comment that "mplayer is not tested with
> the 2.96 compiler - there have been issues with this compiler in the past
> - we don't recommend you use it.  Please don't report problems to the
> lists until you have confirmed that they also exist when you compile with
> 2.95 or >=3.0."
> I can understand the concern - who needs problems caused from outside.
> But all this xxx is CRAP, yyy is SHIT that's all over the docs and list
> really grates for me.  I don't think it does the project credit.  Which
> seems a shame with such a good player... :
> Quality code is hard to write.  Mplayer has bugs, gcc has bugs.
> icewm has bugs...
yes, I fully agree with you in this point.
Instead of saying xyz is shit we should rather find a solution which surely 
exists in 99% of the cases.
So in icewm case a note in the docs like "we don't know how to fix this 
problem with icewm, if you know how to fix it, send us example code/patches".
> Steve
Best Regards,
- MPlayer Developer - http://mplayerhq.hu/ -
I think it would be a good idea.
	- Mahatma Ghandi, asked what he thought of Western Civilisation

More information about the MPlayer-users mailing list