[Ffmpeg-devel] [PATCH] update libavformat support for CONFIG_ENCODERS

[Roine Gustafsson]

On May 9, 2005, at 11:24 PM, Michael Niedermayer wrote:
> On Monday 09 May 2005 22:18, Alexander Strasser wrote:
>> Roine Gustafsson wrote:
>>> On May 9, 2005, at 7:09 PM, Michael Niedermayer wrote:
>>>> On Monday 09 May 2005 18:48, Roine Gustafsson wrote:
>>>>> This adds nearly full support for CONFIG_ENCODERS to libavformat. 
>>>>> If
>>>>> libavformat is compiled without CONFIG_ENCODERS most of the muxers
>>>>> will
>>>>> not be compiled in.
>>>>> It mostly adds #ifdef's, but sometimes needs to add static to
>>>>> functions
>>>>> so they are not compiled in if not referenced. (This generates some
>>>>> warnings though).
>>>>
>>>> rejected, CONFIG_ENCODERS has nothing to do with (de)muxers, muxers 
>>>> and
>>>> encoders are independant ...
>>>
>>> I'm just continuing what was already present - grep for 
>>> CONFIG_ENCODERS
>>> in lavf and you'll see.
>>> I agree the name CONFIG_ENCODERS is not appropriate; do you want to
>>> change it?
>>> Now that you've introduced CONFIG_<x>_ENCODER in lavc, 
>>> CONFIG_ENCODERS
>>> should be strictly for lavf, but there are some CONFIG_ENCODERS in 
>>> lavc
>>> still.
>>
>>   Doesn't make sense to me. Shouldn't the codec stuff get removed from
>> lavf?
>
> yes

What codec stuff? CONFIG_ENCODERS turns on the muxers. Yes, it's a bad 
name, I didn't pick it, I'm just finishing what someone started.

>> I guess separate symbols for muxers are the only thing missing
>> (maybe some cleanup too, i am not familiar with lavf source).
>
> yes a CONFIG_X_MUXER / CONFIG_X_DEMUXER for every (de)muxer

Then we all agree. I suggest applying my patch first; it will make it 
easier to convert all the CONFIG_ENCODERS to CONFIG_<x>_MUXER later in 
one step.

   /Roine