[FFmpeg-devel] [PATCH] Dynamic plugins loading

compn tempn
Sat Nov 6 17:47:19 CET 2010

On Sat, 6 Nov 2010 13:56:30 +0200, Felipe Contreras wrote:
>On Sat, Nov 6, 2010 at 12:57 PM, Reimar D?ffinger
><Reimar.Doeffinger at gmx.de> wrote:
>> On Sat, Nov 06, 2010 at 12:30:36PM +0200, Felipe Contreras wrote:
>>> On Sat, Nov 6, 2010 at 11:47 AM, Reimar D?ffinger
>>> <Reimar.Doeffinger at gmx.de> wrote:
>>> > On Sat, Nov 06, 2010 at 11:18:54AM +0200, Felipe Contreras wrote:
>>> >> FFmpeg's lack of dynamic plugin loading prevents it from getting into
>>> >> the Fedora distribution. Period.
>>> >
>>> >> So we come again to the same: you don't care about Fedora. Fedora has
>>> >> a philosophy, and that's that.
>>> >>
>>> >> Basically what you are saying is that Fedora needs to change their
>>> >> philosophy in order to conform to FFmpeg.
>>> >
>>> > Well, I think we are still trying to figure out the philosophy,
>>> > sometimes it is claimed to be "no patents" then it seems to be more
>>> > like "no patents unless those we for some reason considered safe" or
>>> > possibly "let's better not look, we might find a patent issue" and
>>> > now according to you it's not related to patents but it's just
>>> > that "dynamic plugin loading" is an absolute requirement.
>>> You are mixing everything. It's very simple; FFmpeg has code with
>>> patents claimed by MPEG LA and other parties... that can't go into
>>> Fedora, but people should be able to install that support from a third
>>> party (rpmfusion.org).
>>> The only solution provided so far that is transparent to the end-user
>>> is dynamic plug-in loading.
>> No, that is no solution. Packages from different source that depend
>> on internal APIs for which we guarantee no compatibility is a horror
>> that Debian users have experienced enough, and here the involved
>> dynamic libs were only different libav* versions and MPlayer.
>> I see no reason why this wouldn't be far worse for plug-ins.
>But at least it's better than the current situation: no FFmpeg at all.
>So many packages have to go to rpmfusion.org, just because they rely
>on it.

if i had to choose an ffmpeg without h264 or no ffmpeg at all in a
distro, i'd choose not having ffmpeg. sony, apple, microsoft, youtube.
hulu all use h264. its the most popular codec aside from
xvid/divx/mpeg4-asp right now.

wasnt it ffmpeg's policy not to have crippled ffmpeg in distros?

does fedora have mp3 decoder/encoder license? heh


More information about the ffmpeg-devel mailing list