| Message ID | 1386671433-23633-1-git-send-email-martin@martin.st |
|---|---|
| State | Committed |
| Commit | 70e981cf5d75abc9bff076969270b587a0004d3f |
| Headers | show |
On Tue, 10 Dec 2013 12:30:33 +0200, Martin Storsjö <martin@martin.st> wrote: > From: Rumin Sam <ruminsam@corp.bluecherry.net> > > Some ACTi cameras fail if "*" is passed as the URI. > > Signed-off-by: Ismael Luceno <ismael.luceno@corp.bluecherry.net> > --- > Removed the comment from the source about what had been changed > - we've got git history for that (it also had tabs that are > forbidden). > > The change itself looks ok to me, I tested it on DSS, but it would > probably be good if someone could test it against e.g. some Axis > cameras. Feel free to push IMO, if you think it's ok. (don't have the HW myself sadly)
On Wed, 11 Dec 2013, Anton Khirnov wrote: > > On Tue, 10 Dec 2013 12:30:33 +0200, Martin Storsjö <martin@martin.st> wrote: >> From: Rumin Sam <ruminsam@corp.bluecherry.net> >> >> Some ACTi cameras fail if "*" is passed as the URI. >> >> Signed-off-by: Ismael Luceno <ismael.luceno@corp.bluecherry.net> >> --- >> Removed the comment from the source about what had been changed >> - we've got git history for that (it also had tabs that are >> forbidden). >> >> The change itself looks ok to me, I tested it on DSS, but it would >> probably be good if someone could test it against e.g. some Axis >> cameras. > > Feel free to push IMO, if you think it's ok. > (don't have the HW myself sadly) Tested on a few RealRTSP streams as well, doesn't seem to break anything, thus pushing. // Martin
On 2013-12-10 12:30:33 +0200, Martin Storsjö wrote: > From: Rumin Sam <ruminsam@corp.bluecherry.net> > > Some ACTi cameras fail if "*" is passed as the URI. > > Signed-off-by: Ismael Luceno <ismael.luceno@corp.bluecherry.net> > --- > Removed the comment from the source about what had been changed > - we've got git history for that (it also had tabs that are > forbidden). > > The change itself looks ok to me, I tested it on DSS, but it would > probably be good if someone could test it against e.g. some Axis > cameras. I would guess the original sender has the hardware, cc-ing him in this reply since I had to approve this mail from the moderation queue. Janne > --- > libavformat/rtspdec.c | 2 +- > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) > > diff --git a/libavformat/rtspdec.c b/libavformat/rtspdec.c > index 160d49b..583070a 100644 > --- a/libavformat/rtspdec.c > +++ b/libavformat/rtspdec.c > @@ -877,7 +877,7 @@ retry: > rt->get_parameter_supported)) { > ff_rtsp_send_cmd_async(s, "GET_PARAMETER", rt->control_uri, NULL); > } else { > - ff_rtsp_send_cmd_async(s, "OPTIONS", "*", NULL); > + ff_rtsp_send_cmd_async(s, "OPTIONS", rt->control_uri, NULL); > } > /* The stale flag should be reset when creating the auth response in > * ff_rtsp_send_cmd_async, but reset it here just in case we never > -- > 1.7.9.4 > > _______________________________________________ > libav-devel mailing list > libav-devel@libav.org > https://lists.libav.org/mailman/listinfo/libav-devel
diff --git a/libavformat/rtspdec.c b/libavformat/rtspdec.c index 160d49b..583070a 100644 --- a/libavformat/rtspdec.c +++ b/libavformat/rtspdec.c @@ -877,7 +877,7 @@ retry: rt->get_parameter_supported)) { ff_rtsp_send_cmd_async(s, "GET_PARAMETER", rt->control_uri, NULL); } else { - ff_rtsp_send_cmd_async(s, "OPTIONS", "*", NULL); + ff_rtsp_send_cmd_async(s, "OPTIONS", rt->control_uri, NULL); } /* The stale flag should be reset when creating the auth response in * ff_rtsp_send_cmd_async, but reset it here just in case we never