Open GoogleCodeExporter opened 8 years ago
try with stable ffmpeg release - version 0.5.
Original comment by a2k0001@gmail.com
on 24 Feb 2010 at 7:42
same thing here, try to compile but i get errors at:
ffmpeg_fas.c:462:3: warning: enumeration value ‘PIX_FMT_NB’ not handled in
switch
ffmpeg_fas.c: In function ‘private_convert_to_rgb’:
ffmpeg_fas.c:832:15: warning: passing argument 2 of ‘sws_scale’ from
incompatible pointer type
/usr/include/libswscale/swscale.h:223:5: note: expected ‘const uint8_t *
const*’ but argument is of type ‘uint8_t **’
ffmpeg_fas.c: In function ‘private_convert_to_gray8’:
ffmpeg_fas.c:867:15: warning: passing argument 2 of ‘sws_scale’ from
incompatible pointer type
/usr/include/libswscale/swscale.h:223:5: note: expected ‘const uint8_t *
const*’ but argument is of type ‘uint8_t **’
make: *** [ffmpeg_fas.o] Error 1
qt 4.7.3
ffmpeg 0.7_rc1
sabayon gentoo based distro spin ... ffmpeg stable means ffmpeg<=0.5
in portage i have
media-video/ffmpeg
Available versions: 0.5_p20373[1] 0.6 0.6_p25767 (~)0.6.90_rc0-r2 (~)0.7_rc1 **9999
this means 0.5_p20373 is stable or not!?
Original comment by totedati
on 21 Jul 2011 at 11:52
sorry! i should check better first, look like this bug is only a duplicate of
this bug:
http://code.google.com/p/imageshack-uploader/issues/detail?id=192
solution from Issue 192 is working to me, can build imageshack-uploader using
current sabayon linux ffmpeg version, ffmpeg v0.7_rc1, after i apply François
Boulogne ffmpeg_fas.c.patch:
patch --verbose < ffmpeg_fas.c.patch
Hmm... Looks like a unified diff to me...
The text leading up to this was:
--------------------------
|diff --git a/imageshack-uploader/ffmpeg_fas.c
b/imageshack-uploader/ffmpeg_fas.c
|index 5f1cd81..2141a51 100644
|--- a/imageshack-uploader/ffmpeg_fas.c
|+++ b/imageshack-uploader/ffmpeg_fas.c
--------------------------
Patching file ffmpeg_fas.c using Plan A...
Hunk #1 succeeded at 96.
Hunk #2 succeeded at 111.
Hunk #3 succeeded at 226.
Hunk #4 succeeded at 376.
Hunk #5 succeeded at 387.
Hunk #6 succeeded at 500.
Hunk #7 succeeded at 940.
Hunk #8 succeeded at 976.
done
problem solved
Original comment by totedati
on 22 Jul 2011 at 12:35
Original issue reported on code.google.com by
qubodup
on 12 Feb 2010 at 4:42Attachments: