[FFmpeg-devel] [PATCH] New library for shared non-generic libav* utils
Sat Jul 17 19:05:41 CEST 2010
On date Friday 2010-07-09 18:33:05 +0200, Michael Niedermayer encoded:
> 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
Here it is a patch, it's not yet clear how many people are going to
As for me I already explained that, while I dislike the added
complexity, I also appreciate the idea of a minimal generic libavutil
which could be used in other non multimedia related projects.
Since Michael dislikes the idea of pushing multimedia-related shared
stuff to lavu, I find the addition of a new library an accptable
As for the name, Michael proposed libavcommon, I don't like much this
name so I'm proposing libavcore (like -> multimedia core
utilities). Other ideas: libavmediacore or libavmediautils.
I plan to move here the imgconvert stuff and some parsing utils from
lavc, and pixfmt/pixdesc + media macros from lavu at the next lavu
More information about the ffmpeg-devel