[FFmpeg-devel] [PATCH] lavc/libopenh264enc: update to openh264 1.6

[Michael Niedermayer]

On Mon, May 23, 2016 at 01:24:02PM +0000, Gregory J Wolfe wrote:
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: ffmpeg-devel [mailto:ffmpeg-devel-bounces at ffmpeg.org] On Behalf
> > Of Hendrik Leppkes
> > Sent: Saturday, May 21, 2016 3:25 AM
> > To: FFmpeg development discussions and patches <ffmpeg-
> > devel at ffmpeg.org>
> > Subject: Re: [FFmpeg-devel] [PATCH] lavc/libopenh264enc: update to
> > openh264 1.6
> > 
> > On Mon, Mar 7, 2016 at 6:05 PM, Stefano Sabatini <stefasab at gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> > > In particular, the slice mode API was changed in commit:
> > >
> > > commit 33c378f7b791310e4cb64b53e2bb8f3f3bded105
> > > Author: sijchen <sijchen at cisco.com>
> > > Date:   Tue Nov 10 09:50:06 2015 -0800
> > >
> > >     change API for slicing part for easier usage (the UseLoadBalancing flag is
> > still under working)
> > >
> > > This fixes compilation with latest version of openh264.
> > > ---
> > 
> > From the author of this wrapper:
> > 
> > [20:23:22] <wbs> just fwiw, the openh264 patch that somebody just
> > sent, for fixing compilation with 1.6 (which is not released) is just
> > awful. it changes defaults for lots of options, it changes names for
> > options, etc, all in one single patch (which breaks compilation with
> > any earlier version)
> > [20:23:47] <wbs> if one wants to add support for 1.6, it shouldn't
> > break support for earlier versions. and 1.6 isn't released, so the
> > actual api for that version may still change
> > [20:24:06] <wbs> so I would just tell people to stick it and not try
> > to "support" an unreleased version which is still open for changes
> > 
> > I agree with this assessment, dropping support for any and all
> > released versions of the library in favor of a unreleased
> > in-development version seems bad.
> > Can't we support both, and address his comments about changing the
> > options etc?
> > 
> > - Hendrik
> 
> FWIW, we at Kodak Alaris are actively using openh264 1.6 (OK so it's
> not officially released) with FFmpeg.  I have manually applied the 1.6
> related patches, AND I have an FFmpeg change (soon to be submitted)
> to support other new capabilities in 1.6.  What I would like to see is
> openh264 1.6 become an official release (soon!), with interface changes
> conditionally compiled so as not to break builds using older versions.
> Also, perhaps the  pre-1.6 options could be transparently mapped into
> the new 1.6 options so that there would be a smooth transition.
> 
> If it would help move this along, I will tentatively volunteer to the do
> some or all of the work.

it would be great to have support for both 1.6 and older versions

[...]
-- 
Michael     GnuPG fingerprint: 9FF2128B147EF6730BADF133611EC787040B0FAB

I know you won't believe me, but the highest form of Human Excellence is
to question oneself and others. -- Socrates
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 181 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
URL: <http://ffmpeg.org/pipermail/ffmpeg-devel/attachments/20160523/894ca473/attachment.sig>