[MPlayer-dev-eng] Re: [RFC] including x264 with MPlayer tarballs

[Guillaume POIRIER]

Hi,

On 8/23/05, Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski <dominik at rangers.eu.org> wrote:
> On Tuesday, 23 August 2005 at 17:42, Guillaume POIRIER wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > On 8/23/05, Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski <dominik at rangers.eu.org> wrote:
> > > On Tuesday, 23 August 2005 at 00:17, Alexander Izvorski wrote:
> >
> > [..]
> >
> > > > * The x264 patch would need to be applied to the version of x264 which
> > > > is in the tarballs.  I'm not sure how to automate that as part of the
> > > > tarball creation script?  It's a really simple patch, but in any case
> > > > I volunteer to maintain it.
> > >
> > > What tarballs? If we include x264 in MPlayer's sources, we'll keep it
> > > patched and keep the diffs from official sources in CVS, too, for as long
> > > as they're needed.
> >
> > I think the idea of Alex and I was just to import it into MPlayer
> > source tree at tarball generation time, not to fork it. MPlayer is
> > hard enough to maintain not to add another burden to the team (at
> > least, that's the way I see it).
> >
> > Now, maybe it's a bad idea in the sense that if the scripts are only
> > run at tarball generation time, they might generate a source tree that
> > will not be as thoughtfully tested as if the code was always available
> > in MPlayer CVS.
> 
> Ah. I didn't even consider this option and you can see by yourself it's
> not a very good one. IMHO having them imported into the tree won't be
> much of a burden. Maybe when the new server is up and running, the x264
> development could move to mphq, like ffmpeg did. Then we wouldn't need
> to worry about keeping in sync. ;)

Not too much of a bad idea I must say (even if I know you're kidding).
The project is, AFAIK, hosted in France, which, as part of the
European Union, may still one day say "yes" to patents...

Guillaume
-- 
Live fast, die old, and make very sure everyone knows you were there.
 -- Alan Cox