[FFmpeg-devel] [FFmpeg-cvslog] fftools/graphprint: Now, make it a Killer-Feature!
softworkz .
softworkz at hotmail.com
Fri May 16 04:26:48 EEST 2025
> -----Original Message-----
> From: ffmpeg-devel <ffmpeg-devel-bounces at ffmpeg.org> On Behalf Of Michael
> Niedermayer
> Sent: Freitag, 16. Mai 2025 02:54
> To: FFmpeg development discussions and patches <ffmpeg-devel at ffmpeg.org>
> Subject: Re: [FFmpeg-devel] [FFmpeg-cvslog] fftools/graphprint: Now, make it a
> Killer-Feature!
>
> Hi
>
> On Fri, May 16, 2025 at 12:17:14AM +0000, softworkz . wrote:
> >
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: ffmpeg-devel <ffmpeg-devel-bounces at ffmpeg.org> On Behalf Of Marton
> > > Balint
> > > Sent: Freitag, 16. Mai 2025 02:00
> > > To: FFmpeg development discussions and patches <ffmpeg-devel at ffmpeg.org>
> > > Subject: Re: [FFmpeg-devel] [FFmpeg-cvslog] fftools/graphprint: Now, make
> it a
> > > Killer-Feature!
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > On Thu, 15 May 2025, softworkz . wrote:
> > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >> -----Original Message-----
> > > >> From: ffmpeg-devel <ffmpeg-devel-bounces at ffmpeg.org> On Behalf Of
> Ramiro
> > > Polla
> > > >> Sent: Donnerstag, 15. Mai 2025 23:50
> > > >> To: ffmpeg-devel at ffmpeg.org
> > > >> Subject: Re: [FFmpeg-devel] [FFmpeg-cvslog] fftools/graphprint: Now,
> make
> > > it a
> > > >> Killer-Feature!
> > > >>
> > > >> Hi,
> > > >>
> > > >> On Thu, May 15, 2025 at 11:11 PM softworkz <git at videolan.org> wrote:
> > > >> [...]
> > > >>> diff --git a/fftools/graph/filelauncher.c
> b/fftools/graph/filelauncher.c
> > > >>> new file mode 100644
> > > >>> index 0000000000..45514ca599
> > > >>> --- /dev/null
> > > >>> +++ b/fftools/graph/filelauncher.c
> > > >> [...]
> > > >>> +int ff_open_html_in_browser(const char *html_path)
> > > >>> +{
> > > >>> + if (!html_path || !*html_path)
> > > >>> + return -1;
> > > >>> +
> > > >>> +#if defined(_WIN32)
> > > >>> +
> > > >>> + // --- Windows ---------------------------------
> > > >>> + {
> > > >>> + HINSTANCE rc = ShellExecuteA(NULL, "open", html_path, NULL,
> NULL,
> > > >> SW_SHOWNORMAL);
> > > >>> + if ((UINT_PTR)rc <= 32) {
> > > >>> + // Fallback: system("start ...")
> > > >>> + char cmd[1024];
> > > >>> + _snprintf_s(cmd, sizeof(cmd), _TRUNCATE, "start \"\"
> \"%s\"",
> > > >> html_path);
> > > >>> + if (system(cmd) != 0)
> > > >>> + return -1;
> > > >>> + }
> > > >>> + return 0;
> > > >>> + }
> > > >>> +
> > > >>> +#elif defined(__APPLE__)
> > > >>> +
> > > >>> + // --- macOS -----------------------------------
> > > >>> + {
> > > >>> + // "open" is the macOS command to open a file/URL with the
> > > default
> > > >> application
> > > >>> + char cmd[1024];
> > > >>> + snprintf(cmd, sizeof(cmd), "open '%s' 1>/dev/null 2>&1 &",
> > > >> html_path);
> > > >>> + if (system(cmd) != 0)
> > > >>> + return -1;
> > > >>> + return 0;
> > > >>> + }
> > > >>> +
> > > >>> +#else
> > > >>> +
> > > >>> + // --- Linux / Unix-like -----------------------
> > > >>> + // We'll try xdg-open, then gnome-open, then kfmclient
> > > >>> + {
> > > >>> + // Helper macro to try one browser command
> > > >>> + // Returns 0 on success, -1 on failure
> > > >>> + #define TRY_CMD(prog) do {
> \
> > > >>> + char buf[1024];
> \
> > > >>> + snprintf(buf, sizeof(buf), "%s '%s' 1>/dev/null 2>&1 &",
> \
> > > >>> + (prog), html_path);
> \
> > > >>> + int ret = system(buf);
> \
> > > >>> + /* On Unix: system() returns -1 if the shell can't run.
> */\
> > > >>> + /* Otherwise, check exit code in lower 8 bits.
> */\
> > > >>> + if (ret != -1 && WIFEXITED(ret) && WEXITSTATUS(ret) == 0)
> \
> > > >>> + return 0;
> \
> > > >>> + } while (0)
> > > >>> +
> > > >>> + TRY_CMD("xdg-open");
> > > >>> + TRY_CMD("gnome-open");
> > > >>> + TRY_CMD("kfmclient exec");
> > > >>> +
> > > >>> + fprintf(stderr, "Could not open '%s' in a browser.\n",
> > > html_path);
> > > >>> + return -1;
> > > >>> + }
> > > >>> +
> > > >>> +#endif
> > > >>> +}
> > > >> [...]
> > > >>
> > > >> Sorry I didn't have a closer look at the patchset while it was under
> > > >> review, but system(cmd) is a big no-no. We could create a file with an
> > > >> explicit path passed by the user, but then it's up to the user to open
> > > >> it.
> > > >
> > > > What's bad about opening a file in the browser when that's the
> documented
> > > > behavior of the cli parameter?
> > >
> > > Because ffmpeg is not a browser opener tool, but a transcoding tool. An
> > > argument can be made for every feature you can think of (Why not add an
> > > option which shuts down a computer when the transcoding is done? Why not
> > > add a playable DOOM implementation so the user will not be bored when
> > > waiting for the transcode to finish).
> > >
> > > Let's just revert this. The many ffmpeg cli frontends can open browsers if
> > > they want.
> >
> > Many good arguments can be found for both sides.
> >
> > > Because ffmpeg is not a browser opener tool
> >
> > By all respect, this isn't one.
> >
> >
> > Anyway, I will let the TC decide about this, then.
>
> Not speaking as a TC member here but IMHO
>
> 1. lets all calm down, so far we have a civil and productive discussion
> maybe we can simply find a solution everyone is happy with!
>
> 2. all security issues must be fixed if there are some
>
> 3. there should be a configure flag to enable/disable the browser opening
> feature
> if it remains
>
> 4. can system() be replaced by fork()+exec*() ? is that something people would
> prefer ?
>
> 5. this is a cool feature, i would use this if its available, that said
> if i had to manually open a browser with a given URL that would work
> for me too.
>
> 6. everyone who unconditionally hates this, please try it
>
> 7. as long as the discussion is nice and productive i think the TC is not the
> best path forward. If things degenerate into some mess then pas it to teh
> TC, yes
I mentioned the TC, because there didn't seem to be any interest to even
talk about it.
Questioning the security side is a reasonable concern IMO. Maybe it's possible
to find different APIs for doing the same or requiring the user to setup
a script or an environment variable to make it work.
Being feature doing something that hasn't been done before is not a
reasonable concern IMO. Nobody is being forced to use it.
User convenience is important and beneficial for the project as it
makes it more attractive.
I thought about the generated output eventually having multiple tabs
where you can also view the log (with coloring) and another one
showing stats. Maybe also a breakdown of how the command line
parameters were applied.
Finally, I want to repeat that I'm really open for discussion, I wish
it would have been during the 15 revisions of the patchset and the three
reminders I had sent.
Right now, I think it's really not fair to try to blame me as if I
had done anything wrong.
I also want to stress that there wasn't a single review comment that
wouldn't have addressed. Those claims are not true.
Thanks,
sw
More information about the ffmpeg-devel
mailing list