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

Stefano Sabatini stefano.sabatini-lala
Mon Jul 19 01:15:12 CEST 2010


On date Saturday 2010-07-17 19:05:41 +0200, Stefano Sabatini encoded:
> 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
> accept this.
> 
> 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
> compromise.
> 
> 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
> major bump.
> 
> Regards.
> 

> From 04cdf8ce20d4aaaa030873518210f91289cc4264 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
> From: Stefano Sabatini <stefano.sabatini-lala at poste.it>
> Date: Sat, 17 Jul 2010 17:38:28 +0200
> Subject: [create-lavcore PATCH] Add libavcore.
> 
> The new library is meant to contain the core multimedia utilities for
> FFmpeg, to make them shareable between more libav* libraries.

Ping.

I'd like to see the thing settled, either by allowing to put
multimedia-related stuff in lavu, either by allowing a new library in
FFmpeg (I slightly prefer the second solution for the abovementioned
reasons).

Regards.



More information about the ffmpeg-devel mailing list