Hi,
On Thu, Feb 05, 2004 at 11:50:09PM +0100, Axel Thimm wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 05, 2004 at 10:57:06PM +0100, Stefan Smietanowski wrote:
> > Another issue. I see mjpegtools-1.6.2 and I see mjpegtools161 ..
> >
> > Is there a reason for the compatibility library ? Is there something
> > that works / doesn't work / works better with the old one?
> >
> > Should I include both for some reason?
As an update, mjpegtools161 has been deprecated:
http://bugzilla.atrpms.net/show_bug.cgi?id=37
--
Axel.Thimm@physik.fu-berlin.de
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://lists.atrpms.net/pipermail/atrpms-devel/attachments/20040223/1446520d/attachment.bin
On Thu, Feb 05, 2004 at 11:50:09PM +0100, Axel Thimm wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 05, 2004 at 10:57:06PM +0100, Stefan Smietanowski wrote:
> > Another issue. I see mjpegtools-1.6.2 and I see mjpegtools161 ..
> >
> > Is there a reason for the compatibility library ? Is there something
> > that works / doesn't work / works better with the old one?
> >
> > Should I include both for some reason?
As an update, mjpegtools161 has been deprecated:
http://bugzilla.atrpms.net/show_bug.cgi?id=37
--
Axel.Thimm@physik.fu-berlin.de
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://lists.atrpms.net/pipermail/atrpms-devel/attachments/20040223/1446520d/attachment.bin