On Wed, Feb 12, 2025 at 12:03:37PM +0100, Tomas Härdin wrote: > tor 2025-02-06 klockan 15:58 +0100 skrev Michael Niedermayer: > > Hi Tomas > > > > On Wed, Feb 05, 2025 at 03:24:24PM +0100, Tomas Härdin wrote: > > > Seems reasonable to me and passes FATE > > > > > > /Tomas > > > > >  avformat.h   |    2 +- > > >  format.c     |    8 ++++---- > > >  libopenmpt.c |    2 +- > > >  3 files changed, 6 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-) > > > 01f04f79202640330d6be91b0215f92f14d1845a  0008-Make-mime-type- > > > award-a-bonus-probe-score.patch > > > From ecc3459990f2871fd907f96fe66362b8fea41bd8 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 > > > 2001 > > > From: =?UTF-8?q?Peter=20Zeb=C3=BChr?= > > > Date: Tue, 21 Nov 2023 14:16:49 +0100 > > > Subject: [PATCH 8/8] Make mime-type award a bonus probe score > > > > > > This changes the default behaviour of ffmpeg where content-type > > > headers > > > on an input gives an absolut probe score (of 75) to instead give a > > > bonus > > > score (of 30). This gives the probe a better chance to arrive at > > > the > > > correct format by (hopefully) giving a large enough bonus to push > > > edge > > > cases in the right direction (MPEG-PS vs MP3, I am looking at you) > > > while > > > also not adversly punishing clearer cases (raw ADTS marked as > > > "audio/mpeg" for example). > > > > > > This patch was regression tested against 20 million recent podcast > > > submissions (after content-type propagation was added to > > > original-storage), and 50k Juno vodcasts submissions (dito). No > > > adverse > > > effects observed (but the bonus may still need tweaking if other > > > edge > > > cases are detected in production). > > > --- > > >  libavformat/avformat.h   | 2 +- > > >  libavformat/format.c     | 8 ++++---- > > >  libavformat/libopenmpt.c | 2 +- > > >  3 files changed, 6 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-) > > > > what is the score ? > > a higher score means more likely but how much more ? > > maybe we should come up with a more formal definition > > like that score is the number of bits of entropy that where checked > > or > > something like that. > > in such a framework, adding 30 for a mime type match would probably > > make sense > > > > without such a framework, adding 30 to a abstract score is hard to > > review > > beyond that, i dont see anything breaking from this but then i > > dont think we have real tests for mime types > > We don't really have tests for the probe scores at all, which is a > problem. Perhaps if we collected some tricky samples we could construct > a test that demands a certain ordering of probe scores for them? For > now scores are tested indirectly by the fact that most tests rely on > correct probing we have tools/probetest probetest [-f ] [ []] > > Also you can't really "formalize" social relations. The reason why > certain files probe as one thing and not another is down to certain > workflows that demand such behavior, which also entails some workflows > being rejected, or at least requiring explicit -f. [...] -- Michael GnuPG fingerprint: 9FF2128B147EF6730BADF133611EC787040B0FAB Awnsering whenever a program halts or runs forever is On a turing machine, in general impossible (turings halting problem). On any real computer, always possible as a real computer has a finite number of states N, and will either halt in less than N cycles or never halt.