[Ffmpeg-devel-irc] ffmpeg-devel.log.20181217

[burek]

[00:11:47 CET] <Compn> Original Codec (OC) pls do not steal :D
[01:49:34 CET] <cone-497> ffmpeg 03Carl Eugen Hoyos 07master:63977ac38f90: configure: Use "clang" as cc_default for Android.
[02:01:05 CET] <JEEB> can someone push https://github.com/jeeb/ffmpeg/commits/dolby_vision_in_isobmff through FATE? I mean, it just adds new identifiers so it should be highly unlikely for it to break FATE, but just in case :P
[02:08:26 CET] <adrianOO7> okay, registered, now should work
[02:08:29 CET] <adrianOO7> hi!
[02:09:12 CET] <adrianOO7> got a problem, I've compiled ffmpeg 4.1 for arm platform (buildroot) and I've been using it to encapsulate camera capture into HLS segment files
[02:10:05 CET] <adrianOO7> one feature I've been using is temp_file flag, on my host machine it works fine, but once I've moved to target device, temp files does not appear, instead I get 0-bytes files
[02:10:45 CET] <adrianOO7> I've attached GDB and looked up values and for some reason HLS_TEMP_FILE flag isn't set on AVFormatContext instance
[02:11:58 CET] <adrianOO7> I've also checked parsed options and indeed temp_file shows up in hls_flags as set (among other flags I've been playing around)
[02:13:31 CET] <adrianOO7> it got me wondering whether proper object is probed for this flag, given a piece of code in hlsenc.c:1456, that is int use_temp_file = proto && !strcmp(proto, "file") && (s->flags & HLS_TEMP_FILE);
[02:14:08 CET] <adrianOO7> test for flag yields 0, but if I eval expression hls->flags & HLS_TEMP_FILE - it actually gets it right
[02:15:57 CET] <adrianOO7> sorry, c->flags; anyway, removing temp_file from hls_flags and re-evaluating this code gives proper results: s->flags & HLS_TEMP_FILE and c->flags & HLS_TEMP_FILE yields 0
[02:16:51 CET] <adrianOO7> seems obvious it's a bug, but it's the first time I dig inside ffmpeg code, so want to be sure before I start working on a patch
[02:20:54 CET] <adrianOO7> BTW there's also inconsistency between checks whether one should use temp file or not - there's a check for proto for s->url (playlist in this case) and oc->url (which is segment file) - while s->url could be actual local file, I believe segment files can be defined as remote (i.e http) - that, in combination with proper flag checking would give a false-positive check for segment file being allowed to be temp file
[07:51:46 CET] <cone-228> ffmpeg 03kjeyapal at akamai.com 07master:d209a3d50f9c: avformat/dashenc : Refactored HLS media playlist related code
[07:51:46 CET] <cone-228> ffmpeg 03kjeyapal at akamai.com 07master:f22fcd4483fc: avformat/dashenc: Added support for Low-latency HLS(Experimental)
[07:52:20 CET] <j-b> seriously, configuring git shortname is not hard.
[08:22:58 CET] <JEEB> asdf
[08:23:22 CET] <JEEB> now supposedly implementing a thing according to a specification is "the issue"
[08:24:01 CET] <JEEB> as if we are not already the butt of "you feed ffmpeg a broken and spec compliant file - guess which will work?"
[08:24:04 CET] <JEEB> jokes
[08:24:36 CET] <JEEB> i know having samples is always better but if chromium, vlc already added this stuff...
[08:24:58 CET] <JEEB> and if the spec seems to hold for the effing samples we have
[10:34:01 CET] <JEEB> ping for https://patchwork.ffmpeg.org/patch/11430/ , btw
[10:34:27 CET] <JEEB> (sample where this fixes lavf passing through invalid timestamps is linked in the previous iteration of that thing)
[10:34:43 CET] <JEEB> https://patchwork.ffmpeg.org/patch/11419/
[11:13:20 CET] <durandal_1707> just apply it
[11:16:41 CET] <JEEB> I'm trying to believe that we still have a workflow :P
[11:17:58 CET] <JEEB> (also I do not have my FFmpeg keys at $dayjob)
[11:19:14 CET] <JEEB> also wut
[11:19:15 CET] <JEEB> src/libavcodec/cfhd.c:139:20: warning: unused function 'process_alpha' [-Wunused-function]
[11:27:16 CET] <durandal_1707> gsoc student
[11:27:49 CET] <durandal_1707> kierank will fix it soon
[11:38:55 CET] <JEEB> also I need to ping all of my other patches, too :|
[11:42:02 CET] <durandal_1707> stop pinging if it is ignored all the time, just apply it
[11:44:28 CET] <JEEB> I want to believe into a workflow!
[11:44:39 CET] <JEEB> that we can be civilized and technical
[11:45:08 CET] <JEEB> and I did already note a week ago that I'll apply one of the patches, so if there's literally no life whatsoever I will start noting that.
[13:20:59 CET] <durandal_1707> michaelni: how to add EOR flag if NUT use this weird frame_code stuff?
[13:30:42 CET] <michaelni> if a framecode with EOR exist that will be used otherwise a framecode with explixitly coded flags would be used and the EOR coded in these flags
[13:33:40 CET] <durandal_1707> michaelni: can EOR packets have syncpoint?
[14:06:32 CET] <JEEB> can someone run FATE on the MPEG-TS patch I posted and the dolby vision isom.c patch?
[14:06:40 CET] <JEEB> I still don't have the full set somewhere :P
[14:07:06 CET] <JEEB> I don't expect anything to break, but I want to be a nice guy and at least make sure things pass
[14:31:29 CET] <michaelni> durandal_1707, i think you can put syncpoints before any frame including eor
[14:32:44 CET] <JEEB> mpeg-ts: https://patchwork.ffmpeg.org/patch/11430/ , dolby vision ids: https://github.com/jeeb/ffmpeg/commits/dolby_vision_in_isobmff
[14:40:36 CET] <cone-008> ffmpeg 03Carl Eugen Hoyos 07master:0b7269e62d03: lavc/cbs: Do not use format specifier "z" on Windows.
[14:45:54 CET] <cone-008> ffmpeg 03Carl Eugen Hoyos 07master:826655d8d117: lavfi/program_opencl: Do not use format specifier "z" on Windows.
[16:12:10 CET] <durandal_1707> michaelni: what is dts for syncpoint before EOR packet?
[18:27:02 CET] <atomnuker> jkqxz: how long do lgtm'd PRs stay unmerged on libva?
[18:27:28 CET] <atomnuker> vaapi with wayland has been broken since october (and since mesa 18.3)
[18:42:27 CET] <cone-008> ffmpeg 03chcunningham 07master:ee1e39a57697: lavf/id3v2: fail read_apic on EOF reading mimetype
[19:21:26 CET] <cone-008> ffmpeg 03Paul B Mahol 07master:d54276f9def8: avfilter/af_apad: add pad_dur and whole_dur options
[20:55:31 CET] <durandal_1707> michaelni: can one add extra packet in .interleave_packet ?
[21:08:23 CET] <cone-008> ffmpeg 03Paul B Mahol 07master:7b2a9aaa0b78: avformat/mxfenc: fix typo
[21:10:22 CET] <JEEB> fucking vittusaatana
[21:10:38 CET] Action: JEEB calms down and starts writing a reply
[21:17:40 CET] <durandal_1707> lol
[21:18:09 CET] <JEEB> there
[21:20:29 CET] <durandal_1707> will there be vittusaatana 2 ?
[21:22:33 CET] <JEEB> michaelni: what's the process if cehoyos blocks my patch officially?
[21:23:03 CET] <JEEB> I do not want this to be a protracted beating-around-the-bush kind of thing
[21:23:30 CET] <JEEB> I've already wasted enough time on this simple enough patch that I feel looking at the six points that I've noted should be correct enough and matching what's specified
[21:23:54 CET] <JEEB> I do not know if we have ever had a set-in-stone requirement for each change set to have a matching sample available
[21:24:03 CET] <durandal_1707> carl can not block patches, he is irrelvant to our project
[21:26:03 CET] <durandal_1707> carl just officially approved your patch with single condition to mention ticket #7347
[21:26:58 CET] <jamrial> JEEB: carl wanted to add bullshit non official tags to mov just to make some crappy files play before
[21:26:58 CET] <durandal_1707> not real condition ... just he will be very happy...
[21:27:12 CET] <jamrial> he has no argument to block a mp4ra tag
[21:27:14 CET] <jamrial> just ignore him
[21:29:29 CET] <durandal_1707> do not ignore Carl, Carl is officially FFmpeg project leader!
[21:29:52 CET] <JEEB> he is not, but I do not want to be the person getting burned for not following project guide lines or rules
[21:30:13 CET] <JEEB> I feel like I've done my due dilligence with regards to those IDs
[21:31:04 CET] <JEEB> durandal_1707: funny enough I'm against mentioning it getting fixed because we still cannot present these pictures
[21:31:12 CET] <JEEB> we only gain capability of demuxing/decoding
[21:31:20 CET] <JEEB> (fucking dolby proprietary bullshit perkele)
[21:31:30 CET] <durandal_1707> rules are there to break them, i do it all the time, i'm rogue dev
[21:34:00 CET] <iive> JEEB, the say it partially fixes it.
[21:35:35 CET] <JEEB> at this point I've wasted enough time rewriting comments or commit message for that asshole of a patch, I am not touching it unless someone says there's something substantial to add to it
[21:36:05 CET] <JEEB> I'm sorry
[21:36:37 CET] <JEEB> at this point I'm tired and feel angry because someone kept seemingly blocking a patch while not saying it clearly
[21:36:52 CET] <JEEB> so this simple patch was just there in the goddamn ether
[21:37:24 CET] <michaelni> <durandal_1707> michaelni: can one add extra packet in .interleave_packet ? <-- i think so but i did never try
[21:37:38 CET] <JEEB> there were other patches supposed to follow but at this point I'm not sure I want to push as much
[21:37:57 CET] <JEEB> since you just feel like you've got a goddamn wall in front of you that is mocking you while you're trying to respond to it
[21:40:42 CET] <jamrial> that's a perfect description of how dealing with carl feels like
[21:41:42 CET] <jamrial> single line replies. questions as answer to questions. being purposely terse. etc
[21:42:53 CET] <JEEB> and while I'm happy that he didn't block the patch, it still feels like bullshit that I had to go that far to get the what-feels-like-reversal. it's tiring, it's a last resort for me
[21:44:29 CET] <JEEB> btw, do we have a box where we can run FATE with patches?
[21:44:45 CET] <JEEB> because I don't have a local copy of FATE and/or I might not have the CPU time around to run the full suite
[21:45:00 CET] <JEEB> but I would still like to make sure that FATE still passes with my things
[21:46:20 CET] <michaelni> it should be easy to setup a box or boxes which test some public branch like "forfatetesting" or something like this 
[21:46:50 CET] <michaelni> i could add a branch like this to my boxes if people want and if that branch was in the main git
[21:48:33 CET] <michaelni> about "<JEEB> michaelni: what's the process if cehoyos blocks my patch officially?", i think i might not know exactly what patch this referes to but talking with the developers involved in a disagreement is certainly the first step
[21:49:15 CET] <durandal_1707> michaelni: i could add smthing flag but that requries that write_packets is called only once
[21:50:36 CET] <jamrial> JEEB: do you have the patch in github or similar? i'll run it through fate
[21:51:44 CET] <durandal_1707> just apply it, it breaks nothing
[21:53:42 CET] <JEEB> jamrial: https://github.com/jeeb/ffmpeg/commits/dolby_vision_in_isobmff and https://patchwork.ffmpeg.org/patch/11430/
[21:53:52 CET] <JEEB> these are the two patch sets I'd like to be passed through FATE
[22:06:50 CET] <michaelni> jeeb/dolby_vision_in_isobmff passes fate
[22:06:57 CET] <JEEB> thank you
[22:15:51 CET] <jamrial> JEEB: the mpegts patch also passes fate
[22:15:57 CET] <JEEB> nice
[22:16:00 CET] <JEEB> thank you very much
[22:21:37 CET] <durandal_1707> seriously if you do not apply that patch I will in next 15 minutes
[22:21:59 CET] <JEEB> I'm still hoping that someone steps in says that it's OK
[22:22:06 CET] <JEEB> then I can push my github branch
[22:22:22 CET] <JEEB> please do not push the version on ML since it has mismatching comments
[22:22:32 CET] <JEEB> I got the AVC tags the wrong way
[22:22:45 CET] <durandal_1707> ah, pain!
[22:24:03 CET] <JEEB> just, please
[22:24:16 CET] <JEEB> thank you
[22:26:02 CET] Action: JEEB quickly rebases
[22:28:02 CET] <cone-008> ffmpeg 03Rodger Combs 07master:6ebe88f3a4c4: lavf/isom: add Dolby Vision sample entry codes for HEVC and H.264
[22:28:03 CET] <cone-008> ffmpeg 03Jan Ekström 07master:a1f0dd24f625: lavf/mov: document the dvh1 codec switch based on hvcC availability
[22:34:27 CET] <JEEB> ok, what on earth is going on
[22:40:47 CET] <durandal_1707> lol
[22:43:17 CET] <BtbN> But why did he close it? The actual issue is not fixed.
[22:44:11 CET] <JEEB> since when do we have to mention everyone who came up with the same thing independently?
[22:44:25 CET] <JEEB> he clearly mentioned that he agreed that I had never seen Igor's patch before
[22:46:10 CET] <durandal_1707> funny times
[22:46:36 CET] <JEEB> and I was not an asshole to this person
[22:47:03 CET] <JEEB> I was aggravated - maybe - by the style of replies, but I still tried to work with him
[22:47:13 CET] <JEEB> he chose not to block my patch when I requested him to note so
[22:48:26 CET] <BtbN> I don't think there was any ill intend here from Carl. Just way too much discussion for a trivial patch.
[22:50:35 CET] <gnafu> I am thinking of trying my hand at adding the -aq-mode option for libaom-av1 (like libvpx-vp9), but I also have zero experience.  So if someone else wanted to add that and not credit me, I would be quite happy ;-D.
[22:50:57 CET] <gnafu> I am not likely to actually follow through, though I may give it a whirl tomorrow if I have time.
[22:52:21 CET] <JEEB> BtbN: I really don't know. I think from my replies you can clearly see that I wanted to work with him.
[22:52:38 CET] <JEEB> he just never seemed to actually say waht he wanted
[22:52:44 CET] <BtbN> Since he also closed the ticket, maybe he misunderstood what the patch does?
[22:52:46 CET] <JEEB> did he want to block me? did he want something else?
[22:53:15 CET] <JEEB> I really don't know
[22:54:05 CET] <JEEB> also he just weirdly accused me of ignoring reviews, spreading obvious nonsense and doing copyright violations
[22:54:14 CET] <JEEB> I don't even goddamn know what's going on at this point
[22:54:30 CET] <JEEB> and this is after trying to work with the person for days
[22:54:37 CET] <JEEB> and I still would
[22:55:11 CET] <jamrial> JEEB: you already dealt with enough bullshit, don't subject yourself to more stress for no gain
[22:55:38 CET] <jamrial> patch was oked and commited, water under the bridge
[22:56:08 CET] <JEEB> I just don't fucking understand
[22:56:19 CET] <durandal_1707> it was oked by michaelni days ago
[22:56:21 CET] <jamrial> no one does
[22:57:19 CET] <JEEB> durandal_1707: and funny enough if I had pushed it then it would have probably gone through just fine. I don't fucking understand what the fuck is even going on
[22:57:26 CET] <JEEB> I just want to go cry in a corner or something
[22:57:48 CET] <JEEB> because as far as I can tell I've tried to co-operate as much as possible
[22:58:00 CET] <JEEB> gave the person a chance to specifically block it if the person wanted to do that
[22:58:07 CET] <durandal_1707> you co-operate too much
[22:58:08 CET] <JEEB> so that it could clearly be marked as such
[22:59:16 CET] <JEEB> and what I get out of it is getting called a copyright infringer and spreading obvious nonsense
[22:59:53 CET] <durandal_1707> relax, forget about all of this
[23:01:49 CET] <BtbN> Carl seems to have it with copyright lately.
[23:02:42 CET] <JEEB> I don't even know why he said that if he agreed I had never seen Igor's patch
[23:02:46 CET] <JEEB> like seriously
[23:02:52 CET] <JEEB> I DON'T GET IT
[23:03:27 CET] <wbs> JEEB: calm down
[23:03:47 CET] <JEEB> and we're on the same mailing list and I want to co-operate with this person just like when I linked him the MPEG-2 Systems spec when he added the HEVC identifier
[23:03:54 CET] <JEEB> I have nothing against him
[23:04:59 CET] <JEEB> wbs: I am pretty calm but it's just all WTF right now
[23:05:57 CET] <wbs> I don't see anywhere that he claims you did copyright infringment. he wanted you to mention the other patch which he vaguely referred to on and off during the discussion (I think?) and vaguely asked you to mention
[23:07:07 CET] <JEEB> wait was that a private e-mail
[23:07:25 CET] <JEEB> yes
[23:07:28 CET] <JEEB> yes it was
[23:07:29 CET] <JEEB> WTF
[23:07:39 CET] <wbs> ok well that changes matters
[23:08:59 CET] <BtbN> Must be quite some copyright there on adding two tags according to the spec
[23:09:13 CET] <JEEB> http://up-cat.net/p/7a77bdf8
[23:10:12 CET] <BtbN> wtf
[23:10:27 CET] <JEEB> exactly
[23:10:38 CET] <JEEB> and I have no idea why he chose to post that off-list
[23:10:57 CET] <wbs> because he knows that's not how one is supposed to talk to others in public
[23:11:20 CET] <BBB> s/in public//
[23:11:41 CET] <wbs> BBB: true
[23:11:45 CET] <BBB> sorry that's unacceptable, regardless of whether it was sent in private or not
[23:11:55 CET] <BBB> it was clearly sent as part of an ongoing project discussion
[23:12:04 CET] <BBB> it was meant to influence project policy and project direction
[23:12:09 CET] <BBB> it was meant to discourage and discredit
[23:12:17 CET] <BBB> there's nothing private about that message
[23:12:40 CET] <BBB> JEEB: sorry dude :(
[23:13:32 CET] <JEEB> I don't even know
[23:14:08 CET] <JEEB> I even replied to his additional comments
[23:14:14 CET] <JEEB> which he had not brought up before
[23:14:38 CET] <JEEB> nor when I noted that if he wanted to block the patch he should just say so
[23:14:58 CET] <JEEB> the only copyright violation I could have done is taking the descriptions from MPEG-4 RA page
[23:15:26 CET] <JEEB> because... they are the official descriptions of those codec identifiers
[23:15:30 CET] <BBB> is that email actually from carl eugen? i.e. are the headers generally consistent with other emails from him?
[23:16:30 CET] <JEEB> let me check
[23:17:18 CET] <JEEB> at least SPF, DKIM and DMARC were marked passed by gmail
[23:19:42 CET] <JEEB> and the e-mail itself matches with what he uses on the ML
[23:21:55 CET] <JEEB> BBB: also the headers hint at it being sent from SMTP for that address
[23:22:15 CET] <BBB> ok
[23:22:18 CET] <BBB> :(
[23:26:24 CET] <philipl> JEEB: Did he intend to send that to someone else on a completely different topic? He knows who you are.
[23:26:33 CET] <philipl> It's so out of left field I can't quite believe it.
[23:27:22 CET] <JEEB> philipl: welcome to me some time ago
[23:27:29 CET] <JEEB> I didn't even notice it was sent to me privately
[23:27:47 CET] <JEEB> until wbs mentioned that he didn't accuse me of anything seemingly
[23:30:08 CET] <philipl> I guess he's still sour about MPEG-RA allowing Dolby to register a code that was used ad-hoc in a file once in 2001.
[23:41:20 CET] <JEEB> also conveniently he at that point also cut the e-mail thread it seems https://ffmpeg.org/pipermail/ffmpeg-devel/2018-December/237780.html
[23:52:35 CET] <BradleyS> there's a word for this: shaming
[23:53:12 CET] <BradleyS> don't feel ashamed for things you didn't do, don't feel ashamed for other people being difficult
[23:53:42 CET] <BradleyS> a good faith effort is obvious here
[23:55:42 CET] <JEEB> I would clearly hope so since in my opinion I did try to work with the person and when I started getting way too tired I would tell the person to actually specifically note that he'd be blocking me
[23:56:54 CET] <BradleyS> carl can be a bit paranoid at times, i think he's just misjudging the situation and not being malicious
[23:57:18 CET] <BradleyS> still frustrating
[23:57:43 CET] <nevcairiel> then he has the worst judgement of any person ever, its not like this is the first, or even the 10th time =p
[23:58:52 CET] <BradleyS> some of it could be language barrier as well
[23:59:11 CET] <BradleyS> but it is not cool to respond that way to a contributor in public or private in any case
[23:59:31 CET] <BradleyS> (this is why projects adopt codes of conduct)
[23:59:32 CET] Action: BradleyS runs
[00:00:00 CET] --- Tue Dec 18 2018