Opened 8 years ago
Closed 6 years ago
#54064 closed enhancement (fixed)
port:mlt{,-qt5} : backported upstream patch, OpenCV & SDL tweaks
Reported by: | RJVB (René Bertin) | Owned by: | |
---|---|---|---|
Priority: | Normal | Milestone: | |
Component: | ports | Version: | |
Keywords: | haspatch | Cc: | ddennedy (Dan Dennedy), mkae (Marko Käning), MarcusCalhoun-Lopez (Marcus Calhoun-Lopez) |
Port: | mlt mlt-qt5 |
Description
This patch introduces the following 4 enhancements (besides cleanup to follow Qt5 changes):
- backports a fix from the next release that prevents crashing on exit in dependents using the C++ MLT framework (Kdenlive)
- introduces a
gpl3
variant to enable some more features - introduces an
opencv
variant to avoid opportunistic dependencies and to formalise the fact that the choice of Qt version should match in OpenCV and Melt . - introduces a
disable_sdl
variant which can be useful when when Melt is used in dependents that themselves depend on SDL2, like Kdenlive. This will help avoid (warnings about) runtime conflicts which could lead to unforeseen issues. It can be hoped that one day MLT will support SDL2 too. I have not noticed any feature loss (in Kdenlive).
Attachments (3)
Change History (11)
Changed 8 years ago by RJVB (René Bertin)
Attachment: | patch-commit-a3188e3.diff added |
---|
Changed 8 years ago by RJVB (René Bertin)
Attachment: | patch-no-sdl.diff added |
---|
Changed 8 years ago by RJVB (René Bertin)
comment:1 Changed 8 years ago by RJVB (René Bertin)
On a related note: adding Movit support for hardware video processing would be nice! https://movit.sesse.net/
comment:2 Changed 8 years ago by mf2k (Frank Schima)
in the mlt patch, please use the normal syntax for adding a revision
line and not append it to the version
line. Also, revision
should be 1, not 2, since it starts at 0.
comment:3 Changed 8 years ago by RJVB (René Bertin)
I think Dan can handle those points if he agrees.
Me I think that adding the revision statement on the same line as the version is the best and simplest protection against forgetting to remove it; it also reads more in line with how the port effective version is shown elsewhere. Both alternatives are valid syntax so I don't see why we have to be splitting hairs over this.
comment:4 Changed 8 years ago by ddennedy (Dan Dennedy)
There is a lot of changes in here. Will you volunteer to be the new maintainer of the mlt port?
comment:5 Changed 8 years ago by RJVB (René Bertin)
Co/principal maintainer, sure, esp. of the Qt5 side of things. I don't have commit rights so I'm not the most ideal candidate to take over maintainership completely.
comment:6 Changed 8 years ago by ddennedy (Dan Dennedy)
I do not have commit access either, but I am ok with co-maintainer as well.
comment:7 Changed 6 years ago by MarcusCalhoun-Lopez (Marcus Calhoun-Lopez)
Cc: | MarcusCalhoun-Lopez added |
---|
comment:8 Changed 6 years ago by MarcusCalhoun-Lopez (Marcus Calhoun-Lopez)
Resolution: | → fixed |
---|---|
Status: | new → closed |
I believe all of these proposals have been incorporated.
If not, please feel free to reopen.
backported upstream fix