[FFmpeg-devel] [PATCH] Dynamic plugins loading
Tue Nov 2 23:20:34 CET 2010
On Tue, Nov 2, 2010 at 11:44 PM, Michael Niedermayer <michaelni at gmx.at> wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 02, 2010 at 11:27:57PM +0200, Felipe Contreras wrote:
>> On Tue, Nov 2, 2010 at 10:14 PM, Michael Niedermayer <michaelni at gmx.at> wrote:
>> > On Tue, Nov 02, 2010 at 03:37:54PM -0400, Ronald S. Bultje wrote:
>> >> On Tue, Nov 2, 2010 at 3:31 PM, Felipe Contreras
>> >> <felipe.contreras at gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> > So what you are saying is: "we don't care about linux". Ok, that's good to know.
>> >> Fedora != Linux. I'm saying Fedora doesn't have enough leverage to
>> >> force us to shoot ourselves.
>> > Carefull ronald, you are falling in that guys trap
>> > ffmpeg works fine on fedora
>> > noone from fedora asked us to change anything
>> > so its not even "we dont care about fedora"
>> > we do care about all distros and their maintainers official requests.
>> There's no FFmpeg in Fedora:
> theres a compiler in fedora, and theres ./configure && make
That doesn't say anything. If you can compile FFmpeg on Windows that
doesn't mean Microsoft has no problem with FFmpeg.
>> Nobody has asked you to change anything because they decided not to
>> use it, and instead use GStreamer with libraries such as libvorbis and
> did they obtain libvpx patent licenses too or do they belive that the code
> is not patent encumbered?
Why would that even matter for this discussion? Anyway, it's about
philosophy, not legality.
>> *If* patent encumbered codecs could be installed as plugins, then the
>> situation might change.
> you should talk to the people from fedora and find out what their point of
> view is on these things and not argue here that they _might_ something
There is no other reason why a distribution would not be shipping
FFmpeg. I can tell you this is the reason in MeeGo.
Anyway, if the Fedora board officially requests a pluggable
architecture, will it happen?
More information about the ffmpeg-devel