x265: 3.2 -> 3.3 #80405
x265: 3.2 -> 3.3 #80405
Conversation
| @@ -1,7 +1,7 @@ | |||
| { stdenv, fetchurl, fetchpatch, cmake, nasm, numactl | |||
| , numaSupport ? stdenv.hostPlatform.isLinux && (stdenv.hostPlatform.isx86 || stdenv.hostPlatform.isAarch64) # Enabled by default on NUMA platforms | |||
| , debugSupport ? false # Run-time sanity checks (debugging) | |||
| , highbitdepthSupport ? false # false=8bits per channel, true=10/12bits per channel | |||
| , highbitdepthSupport ? true # false=8bits per channel, true=10/12bits per channel | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
10-bit video is widely available, and I don't see the downside of enabling this by default? Without this as the default it's pretty annoying to get an ffmpeg that can transcode HDR stuff.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Sure, but do it in a separate commit. It's not needed for the update.
|
cc @codyopel |
|
@titanous @FRidh https://github.com/triton/triton/blob/master/pkgs/all-pkgs/x/x265/default.nix |
This builds the 10-bit and 12-bit versions of x265 as static
libraries, which then get linked into the 8-bit dynamic library and
executable. This causes x265 to default to 8-bit, but make 10- and
12-bit available to callers that use introspection, such as ffmpeg.
$ x265 -V
x265 [info]: HEVC encoder version 3.2
x265 [info]: build info [Linux][GCC 9.3.0][64 bit] 8bit+10bit+12bit
x265 [info]: using cpu capabilities: MMX2 SSE2Fast LZCNT SSSE3 SSE4.2 AVX FMA3 BMI2 AVX2
$ ffmpeg -h encoder=libx265
[...]
Supported pixel formats: yuv420p yuvj420p yuv422p yuvj422p yuv444p yuvj444p gbrp yuv420p10le yuv422p10le yuv444p10le gbrp10le yuv420p12le yuv422p12le yuv444p12le gbrp12le gray gray10le gray12le
Inspired by @codyopel's comment on #80405.
|
Hello, I'm a bot and I thank you in the name of the community for your contributions. Nixpkgs is a busy repository, and unfortunately sometimes PRs get left behind for too long. Nevertheless, we'd like to help committers reach the PRs that are still important. This PR has had no activity for 180 days, and so I marked it as stale, but you can rest assured it will never be closed by a non-human. If this is still important to you and you'd like to remove the stale label, we ask that you leave a comment. Your comment can be as simple as "still important to me". But there's a bit more you can do: If you received an approval by an unprivileged maintainer and you are just waiting for a merge, you can @ mention someone with merge permissions and ask them to help. You might be able to find someone relevant by using Git blame on the relevant files, or via GitHub's web interface. You can see if someone's a member of the nixpkgs-committers team, by hovering with the mouse over their username on the web interface, or by searching them directly on the list. If your PR wasn't reviewed at all, it might help to find someone who's perhaps a user of the package or module you are changing, or alternatively, ask once more for a review by the maintainer of the package/module this is about. If you don't know any, you can use Git blame on the relevant files, or GitHub's web interface to find someone who touched the relevant files in the past. If your PR has had reviews and nevertheless got stale, make sure you've responded to all of the reviewer's requests / questions. Usually when PR authors show responsibility and dedication, reviewers (privileged or not) show dedication as well. If you've pushed a change, it's possible the reviewer wasn't notified about your push via email, so you can always officially request them for a review, or just @ mention them and say you've addressed their comments. Lastly, you can always ask for help at our Discourse Forum, or more specifically, at this thread or at #nixos' IRC channel. |
stale
bot
added
the
2.status: stale
|
superseded by #98091 |
Motivation for this change
Things done
sandboxinnix.confon non-NixOS linux)nix-shell -p nixpkgs-review --run "nixpkgs-review wip"./result/bin/)nix path-info -Sbefore and after)