Date: Thu, 23 Jan 2020 02:58:40 +0000 From: bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org To: ports-bugs@FreeBSD.org Subject: [Bug 238773] multimedia/x265: Only highest bit-depth profile is built when multiple (bit-depth OPTIONS) are selected Message-ID: <bug-238773-7788-qTnygoJftV@https.bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/> In-Reply-To: <bug-238773-7788@https.bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/> References: <bug-238773-7788@https.bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D238773 --- Comment #24 from Mikhail Teterin <mi@FreeBSD.org> --- (In reply to daniel.engberg.lists from comment #21) > 8-bit should always be the default and that's the bit depth devices > for sure are to support if they understand H.265 aka HEVC. This seems to be the common sentiment, and I'd agree except for the legacy = of situation -- our _package_ has always been 8bit-only, but the _port_ would = use the different depth if enabled -- this is, what Jamie was pointing out in comment #10. One could say, that people building from source are smart enough to change their settings, except I for one am not such a person myself... I'd fire off "portupgrade" and expect things to "just work" -- and would be upset, if suddenly my program starts behaving differently: if I had, say, 10bit-width enabled, I'd expect it to continue to remain the default... Maybe, that's unavoidable -- because the package has always defaulted to 8b= it (only) and should remain 8bit by default even if other widths will be enabl= ed too from now on. > While your Makefile works it's not very clear what it does My method allows the main part to be built as a "vanilla" cmake-using port = -- without overwriting the do-build and the do-install targets. I think, that'= s a win. I also avoid the cd-ing and mv-ing things around, but that's less important. > why you're building HDR as a separate lib which upstream doesn't > seem recommend Because _your own_ x265-v1.patch did :-) (ENABLE_HDR10_PLUS=3Dtrue). You ju= st weren't installing the result, because you had your own do-install... Now, maybe, that can be a separate option -- but given the general spirit of this discussion, I figured I'll just include it unconditionally. > Are you still on 11.2 or did you upgrade to 11.3? I am on 11.3, actually -- I made a mistake filing that bug-report. A mistak= e I cannot (easily) correct, because the report was filed anonymously. I doubt, upstream developers would use a FreeBSD-machine, though. But they may be ab= le to find the same processor and clang/nasm versions... > I think we should drop the option to select bit depths Considering the effort already spent on developing support for the options,= I'd like to keep it. Whoever was happy building the port with just one bit-dept= h, should be able to continue to have that, even if the default package will include all three. (In reply to Jamie Landeg-Jones from comment #22) > 8bit should be the default, AND should always be included > (it seems to be what everyone else expects Everyone _except_ FreeBSD-users -- who, until the port's inception -- have = used exactly one bit-depth... I'm leaning towards preserving that ability -- whi= le adding the ability to include multiple depths. (In reply to amvandemore from comment #23) > 8 bit is absolutely required because it's the standard bit depth > for any common video of decent quality for some time That's an argument for including 8 bit by default (building a package). But someone configuring the port's options should, in my opinion, be able to tu= rn the 8bit-width off, if they have no use for it for whatever reason... Thank you very much, gentlemen. I really do appreciate both the effort you = put into this ticket and your opinions... --=20 You are receiving this mail because: You are the assignee for the bug.=
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?bug-238773-7788-qTnygoJftV>