[FFmpeg-devel] maintainer duties (was: Re: [PATCH] fix speex sample)
Sun Apr 12 00:49:53 CEST 2009
On Sat, Apr 11, 2009 at 03:42:41PM -0700, Baptiste Coudurier wrote:
> On Sat, Apr 11, 2009 at 09:23:49AM -0400, Ronald S. Bultje wrote:
> > Hi,
> > On Sat, Apr 11, 2009 at 7:49 AM, Michael Niedermayer <michaelni at gmx.at> wrote:
> > > It has been decided to put the palette in the AVPackets
> > > how to do this is a question per decoder and per demuxer, some may have a
> > > natural way to pass the palette, some might even say in a spec how to do it
> > > (though i guess that would be the exception if it applies to any at all)
> > > the rest could just have a 'P'<len> vs. 'D' prefixed to packets
> > I think I said this before, I don't like this (conceptually). Can't we
> > just add a PKT_FLAG_PALETTE? It's exactly the same as a prefix, except
> > that it does not actually touch the bitstream. Now that Thilo added
> > all these AVPackets to the decode() functions, let's use them.
> I agree with the principle. I'm more in favor of
> AVPacket->palette_data field.
If you look at the current situation, most places where AVPaletteControl
is used are actually doing quite a bit of "decoding" in the demuxer.
A AVPacket->palette_data would invite the same kind of thing, so it
would require at least a documentation entry like "if you ever use this
when you do not absolutely have to we will send a grue to you to eat you!"
More information about the ffmpeg-devel