[FFmpeg-devel] [PATCH 5/5] Add Windows Resource File support for shared libraries

jamal jamrial at gmail.com
Fri Sep 28 00:10:17 CEST 2012

On 27/09/12 6:24 PM, Alexander Strasser wrote:
> Hi jamal,
> I just skimmed over the descriptions, so this is not a proper review in any way.
> jamal wrote:
>> Working only with GNU windres.
>> The .rc files will be compiled only when building ffmpeg with MinGW/Cygwin and shared libraries enabled
>> ---
>> +            VALUE "CompanyName",      "FFmpeg"
>   "FFmpeg team" or "FFmpeg project" might also be alternatives that give
> hints that FFmpeg is not a company. No, I have no strong feelings about
> this and I am also fine with just "FFmpeg".
>> +            VALUE "FileDescription",  "FFmpeg video filtering library"
>   "video filtering" sounds a bit too constrained to me. Maybe use
>   "FFmpeg multimedia filtering library" or
>   "FFmpeg A/V filtering library" or just
>   "FFmpeg filtering library"
> [...]
>> +            VALUE "FileDescription",  "FFmpeg container format library"
> [...]
>> +            VALUE "FileDescription",  "FFmpeg utility library"
> [...]
>> +            VALUE "FileDescription",  "FFmpeg postprocessing library"
> [...]
>> +            VALUE "FileDescription",  "FFmpeg audio rescaling library"
>   I would tend to use resampling instead of rescaling here.
> [...]
>> +            VALUE "FileDescription",  "FFmpeg image rescaling library"
>   No strong opinion, but maybe video would be the nicer term here. Also
> considering the pairing of
> "FFmpeg audio resampling library"/"FFmpeg video rescaling library"

These descriptions were taken verbatim from the pkgconfig files.
I thought "Audio rescaling" didn't seem right, but decided against changing it for consistency's sake.

lavr does use "resampling" instead of "rescaling", so if you think it's a good idea to change libswr's description (And lavfi/libsws as well) i can submit a separate patch changing the corresponding lines in configure, plus a new version of this patch with the rc files updated as well.

> [...]
>   Those were all just suggestions, maybe other developers can state their
> preferences too. Also I guess this can be changed at any time later. No
> need to do any changes yet. I just think it is always a good idea to think
> about terminology and to try to come up with a consistent one. It makes
> it much easier to talk and communicate about FFmpeg, especially to users
> that normally do not closely follow the development of FFmpeg.
>   Also something slightly OT. I guess you volunteer to maintain this stuff
> (looks like it will need updates from time to time). Would you like to be
> the build system maintainer? I think the people currently listed in MAINTAINERS
> do not maintain our version of the build system anymore which has diverged
> from their fork. So if you would like to step up to that task, please send
> a patch to replace the entries in MAINTAINERS with your full name; if you
> do not want to be listed alone you can write my name after yours.

I'll think about it.
I do plan to maintain the rc files nonetheless (Things like copyright date, and potential new libraries or future changes in descriptions). Or better yet, try to find a reliable way to create them with the configure script.

>   If you want to, you can also maintain a publicly accessible FFmpeg
> git repo with your proposed changes. This would make it easier for you to
> get testers prior to inclusion in the official repo and it is easy to merge
> it into the official repo as soon as it is ready.
>   Alexander Strasser

I'll give github/bitbucket a look then.


More information about the ffmpeg-devel mailing list