[FFmpeg-devel] libswscale future (was: Re: [PATCH] make img_convert symbol conditional on lavc version, not libswscale)

[Diego Biurrun]

On Tue, Jul 08, 2008 at 01:54:42PM +0200, Michael Niedermayer wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 08, 2008 at 09:30:26AM +0200, Diego Biurrun wrote:
> > On Mon, Jul 07, 2008 at 06:52:36PM -0700, Baptiste Coudurier wrote:
> > > 
> > > Diego Biurrun wrote:
> > > > On Sat, Jul 05, 2008 at 04:11:32PM +0200, Michael Niedermayer wrote:
> > > >> these things will have to be fixed, the only real question is if we want
> > > >> to bump the versions or not.
> > > >> If we do, then we should first make a little announcement on the list that
> > > >> people now would have 2 weeks time to do ABI/API breaking changes ...
> > > >> In the meantime we (well I, i guess) would fix the compilation issues.
> > > > 
> > > > Let's go for it then.  I'm sure you will get help fixing remaining
> > > > issues...
> > > 
> > > While I'm all for dropping the old scaler, I'd like to raise 3 issues:
> > > 
> > > 1 - Roundup #504 which is really important IMHO.
> > > 2 - Regression tests broken with new scaler.
> > > 3 - GPL license
> > > 
> > > I don't think we can drop the old scaler until at least these issues
> > > (well #3 is not really an issue) are fixed.
> > > 
> > > What we need IMHO:
> > > - Fix #504.
> > > - Fix regs tests (how is the soc student going ?)
> > > - Make the libswscale compile without --enable-gpl
> > > 
> > > I think this is really important. Thanks guys.
> > 
> > I do believe that things like issue 504 will get fixed much more quickly
> > if the new scaler gets enabled and the old one removed.  There will also
> > be an incentive for people to replace the GPL code...
> 
> Droping the old API does not implicate droping the old scaler.
> (of course we should drop the old scaler as soon as possible but its a
> seperate issue)

So what is the way forward from here?  How do you want things to
proceed?

Diego