On Sunday 12 October 2008 15:05:52 Attila Kinali wrote: > On Sun, 12 Oct 2008 01:02:46 +0200 > > RVM <rvm3000 at ya.com> wrote: > > I know, I read, the problem is that currently there's no one that could > > make a new release, but... a suggestion: what about to make a quick > > source-only release? Just take the current code from svn, change the > > version to 1.0rc3, generate the html docs, and upload the package to the > > web. Let the distros' maintainers to do the binary packages. > > What you think is a quick, 5 min job, is actualy 2-3 days of work, > if you get all relevant people together in time. Not including > the time needed to fix known issues, updating all translations > and stopping the addition of experimental features. > > Roberto, who normaly managed the whole release process, is currently > too busy to do it, and nobody else felt the urge to invest > a lot of time into it. > > If you feel like you need a new release, why don't you try > to cooridinate everything and get a release ready? > > Attila Kinali Hi How about the Windows version? I've been building a few windows binaries myself recently and I must say the process is quite fragile. I haven't been able to compile one that works on most of the Windows machines at my work (yes, I do have --enable-runtime-cpudetection on). The process documentation is obsolete, and the one place (http://oss.netfarm.it/mplayer-win32.php) that seems to describe the current build process had a lot of troubles with different versions of required tools (gcc), libraries and such. That site, much appreciated as it is, is obviously more of a personal log, than information for non-expert third parties. It is not clear what versions of mingw, msys, gcc, mplayer source, patch files and required libraries (many binary) are needed to build a release quality mplayer binary. Bart
