[FFmpeg-devel] [RFC] the future of libamr

Robert Swain robert.swain
Fri Jun 5 15:21:23 CEST 2009

Colin McQuillan wrote:
> 2009/6/5 Robert Swain <robert.swain at gmail.com>:
>> Diego Biurrun wrote:
>>> On Tue, May 19, 2009 at 07:38:50PM +0200, Diego Biurrun wrote:
>>>> Now that OpenCORE AMR support is just around the corner, what about
>>>> libamr?  I'm in favor of removing support for it.  It's nonfree and it's
>>>> crap and we have a free replacement.
>>>> There is a catch: libamr supports AMR-WB encoding, OpenCORE does not.
>>>> IMO we can disregard this.  Hopefully it will spur the development of a
>>>> native replacement.  I do not plan to remove libamr support from the 0.5
>>>> branch, so it will always be available there.
>>>> Thoughts?  Votes?
>>> I just committed the OpenCORE support as replacement.  I will remove
>>> libamr support after the weekend.
>> This may disrupt Colin's AMR-NB decoder work for SoC as he's comparing the
>> FFmpeg implementation against the reference decoder at the moment. Please
>> wait until I've conferred with him as to whether removal of libamr support
>> from trunk will significantly impact on his efforts. I know he has spent
>> some time adding code to the reference 'library' to be able to conduct the
>> comparisons.
>> I don't think it will be a problem though because he can always develop
>> against an older version of trunk while ironing out remaining bugs.
> The change is fine by me; I'm not using the ffmpeg libamr support.

OK, then I guess the only issue is a feature regression in that 
libopencore-amrwb doesn't do encoding. As Diego points out, there's 
nothing stopping people from using FFmpeg 0.5 or a version of svn from 
before the libamr reference wrapper gets removed, but I'm not really 
fond of feature regressions. Is there any good reason not to keep the 
libamr-wb reference encoder wrapper?


More information about the ffmpeg-devel mailing list