[FFmpeg-devel] FOMS 2009 FFmpeg outbrief

[Måns Rullgård]

Jean-Baptiste Kempf <jb at videolan.org> writes:

>> > - less dependency of libavformat on libavcodec would be welcome
>> That's an orthogonal issue.  Besides, changing it would mean *massive*
>> API/ABI breakage.
> We are just reporting that, because that would be nice, but we know that
> this is very difficult.
> The thing is when you have a module using libavformat and you link
> statically, you need to have both libavcodec and libavformat in it, so
> the size is big.
> Once again, this is NOT a reproach nor a rant, this is just a "That
> would be cool".
>
>> > - detail API/ABI changes would be very very welcome
>> svn log avcodec.h etc...
> Sorry, svn log is not documentation, but OK.

It should be rather detailed though.

>> That table maps lavc codec IDs to VLCs internal ID system.  Are they
>> really suggesting that *we* supply ID tags internal to *every* app
>> that uses lav*?  Or just to them, selfishly?
> Sorry, this was not clear. Let me rephrase:
> With more and more distributions removing or adding features, a way to
> request dynamically what feature is in or is not would be nice.

There is already a way to enumerate all codecs or formats.  The file
someone posted a link to contained a table mapping FFmpeg codec IDs to
VLC-internal IDs.  That table has to stay within VLC.

> Moreover, once again, this was not a rant and your answer is a bit
> aggressive.
>
> Sorry if the message wasn't clearly formulated, but we don't have many
> issues and we don't really share the global rant againt FFmpeg.

If you're not part of the rant, you're not a target of any anti-rant.

> About libavformat API, I'll let fenrir discuss that, because I am
> clearly NOT up to date with the (non-)issue.
>
> Btw, is there a discussion room for FFmpeg at Fosdem?

Nothing formal, but it seems some FFmpeg devs will be hanging around.

-- 
M?ns Rullg?rd
mans at mansr.com