[FFmpeg-devel] [PATCH] Enable swscale by default

[Måns Rullgård]

Michael Niedermayer <michaelni at gmx.at> writes:

> On Sat, Sep 13, 2008 at 04:14:08PM +0100, M?ns Rullg?rd wrote:
>> Michael Niedermayer <michaelni at gmx.at> writes:
>> 
>> > Hi
>> >
>> > The patch below enables swscale by default.
>> > The intent is to get more exposure, testing and to avoid people wasting time
>> > working on the old scaler.
>> >
>> > Index: configure
>> > ===================================================================
>> > --- configure	(revision 15306)
>> > +++ configure	(working copy)
>> > @@ -73,7 +73,7 @@
>> >    echo "  --enable-nonfree         allow use of nonfree code, the resulting libav*"
>> >    echo "                           and ffmpeg will be unredistributable [default=no]"
>> >    echo "  --enable-postproc        enable GPLed postprocessing support [default=no]"
>> > -  echo "  --enable-swscale         software scaler support [default=no]"
>> > +  echo "  --disable-swscale        disable software scaler support [default=no]"
>> >    echo "  --enable-avfilter        video filter support (replaces vhook) [default=no]"
>> >    echo "  --enable-avfilter-lavf   video filters dependant on avformat [default=no]"
>> >    echo "  --enable-beosthreads     use BeOS threads [default=no]"
>> > @@ -972,6 +972,7 @@
>> >  enable protocols
>> >  enable static
>> >  enable stripping
>> > +enable swscale
>> >  vhook="default"
>> 
>> swscale is still marked gpl-only, which means that with this patch, a
>> plain ./configure will fail.  This is IMO unacceptable.  Before making
>> swscale the default, we need to make the gpl parts optional, so it can
>> still be built as lgpl.
>
> You could have said that before i started to work on droping the old
> scaler. I do not really disagree that a plain ./configure should not fail
> but this leads to a deadlock because
> 1. swscale depends currently on a yuv2rgb table generator
> 2. ive no intent and made it clear in the past that i will not rewrite the
>    gpl yuv2rgb table generator
> 3. noone else works on swscale, ignoring 2-3 small patches
>
> I thought it was agreed in the droping of the old scaler thread that whoever
> wants a lgpl scaler will have to do the work.

What happened to the gsoc project?

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