[FFmpeg-devel] [RFC] New library for shared non-generic libav* utils

Michael Niedermayer michaelni
Fri Jul 9 18:33:05 CEST 2010

On Fri, Jul 09, 2010 at 04:41:59PM +0100, M?ns Rullg?rd wrote:
> Michael Niedermayer <michaelni at gmx.at> writes:
> > On Fri, Jul 09, 2010 at 09:54:11AM -0400, Ronald S. Bultje wrote:
> >> Hi,
> >> 
> >> On Thu, Jul 8, 2010 at 7:07 PM, Stefano Sabatini
> >> <stefano.sabatini-lala at poste.it> wrote:
> >> [.. cut ..]
> >> > This new lib will contain all code/utils which need to be shared
> >> > between more libav* libs, and are not enough generic to deserve a
> >> > place in libavutil, which is to be considered a collection of
> >> > generic/non-multimedia-related utilities.
> >> 
> >> Disregard me if majority says otherwise, I just wanted to
> >> bikesheddishly note that my personal humble opinion is that less libs
> >> is good, so I'd not have any problems with media-related stuff going
> >> into libavutil. I think the chance that people use a FFmpeg lib for
> >> something unrelated to multimedia is relatively small and should not
> >> be our main focus. Reminds me of not allowing media-specific stuff in
> >> libgstreamer.so. It only causes headaches and distractions. There is
> >> no practical advantage.
> >
> > as maintainer of libavutil i object.
> You are not the sole maintainer.
> > We can have a seperate lib for common code.
> If ever there were an exercise in work creation, this is it.

for us yes, but libavutil is usefull to other projects, ive myself
used code from it for many things unrelated to ffmpeg. Its not used
much by outsiders but i think thats more because its not well known.

> > Iam not stopping people from having their common lib which prior to
> > libavfilter was libavcodec. But now due to libavfilter not depending
> > on libavcodec this is no longer possible.
> >
> > But trying to kill my effort of a util lib
> Perhaps conducting that effort inside FFmpeg, the most
> multimedia-focused project the world has ever known, wasn't such a
> bright idea.

it depends, we do need all the code in libavutil anyway, putting it in a
seperate lib that others can use too doesnt seem all that wrong.
and it is now available in most distros, thus it can actually be used

what non bloated alternatives exist for similar functionality?

> > is simply another thing that is purely provocating.
> People have a right to express their opinions without you being offended.

of course

> > I spended alot of time on libavutil and its only goal was to become
> > a general utils lib
> Said who?  It wasn't even your idea to begin with.  It was suggested
> and implemented by Alexander Strasser.

svn blame of *.c *.h says:
    102      ramiro
    108       takis
    110      benoit
    111      lucabe
    123     bellard
    126   michaelni
    157          al
    185    gpoirier
    285      kostya
    351       aurel
    918      reimar
   1295       diego
   1349         mru
   1616     stefano
   2398     michael

so id say, yes iam still the primary maintainer and author, even if
we consider that blame is not the worlds most idiot proof way to
check this

Michael     GnuPG fingerprint: 9FF2128B147EF6730BADF133611EC787040B0FAB

Avoid a single point of failure, be that a person or equipment.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
URL: <http://lists.mplayerhq.hu/pipermail/ffmpeg-devel/attachments/20100709/35defc16/attachment.pgp>

More information about the ffmpeg-devel mailing list