[FFmpeg-devel] lavfi state of affairs

Baptiste Coudurier baptiste.coudurier
Thu Feb 5 21:36:55 CET 2009

Hi Michael,

On 2/5/2009 12:21 PM, Michael Niedermayer wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 05, 2009 at 08:48:08PM +0100, Stefano Sabatini wrote:
>> On date Tuesday 2009-02-03 13:57:47 +0100, Diego Biurrun encoded:
>>> On Tue, Feb 03, 2009 at 10:52:20AM +0100, Benjamin Larsson wrote:
>>>> Reinhard Tartler wrote:
>>>>> Benjamin Larsson<banan at ludd.ltu.se>  writes:
>>>>>>> you have my approval to drop/disable/svn rm vhook
>>>>>> As suggested in another thread can we do that after the upcoming release ?
>>>>> better drop it before the release. Otherwise user might actually use
>>>>> that feature...
>>>> I don't really care my only argument is that there are users out there
>>>> who still uses vhook. Giving them an official release where it was last
>>>> supported/working could be nice.
>>> I agree with Benjamin.  I'll add a note to the release notes that
>>> mentions that vhook will go away immediately after the release.
>> (Sorry to chime in just now, I had some (dis)connettivity problems in
>> the last days...).
>> What about to drop VHOOK just after *all* its functionality is
>> implemented in lavfi? That would be definitively nicer towards the
>> users.
> iam VERY VERY VERY VERY strongly against this
> that way we would in 5 years still not have half of vhook ported to lavfi
> look at swscale&  imgconvert/resample, NO-ONE is rewriting the few lines
> of GPL code. If i would have ignored people and droped imgconvert/resample
> someone would have rewriten that one file in less than a week.

Sorry but if _you_ want imgconvert dropped, _you_ have to make some 
efforts too.

> people arent crying "ohh no its just 99% LGPL please give us more time
> to work on the 1%" there where in reality "ohh no its just 99% LGPL i
> dont want to spend a day rewriting the 1%". But really the last is
> that people do NOT want to rewrite it and they wont unless there is a
> reason for them to.
> I dont care about the license so i wont work on it others as well either
> dont care or if they do care have no reason at all to do it as long as
> the old code is still useable with svn.

I'll relaunch the flames but still, I know _many_ people thinking that 
libswscale is a _mess_. IMHO if you want it adopted you have to make 
some efforts toward this direction too, ie making libswscale cleaner and 
easier to code in.

Also libswscale does not support palette output, this makes GIF encoder 
_useless_. Also IIRC there is problem on 64bits arch with rounding or 
something like that.

Imgconvert is _complete_, simpler, easier to code on, albeit a lot slower.

> The price though is payed by every devel as they have to deal with 2
> scalers and soon 2 video filter APIs ...

The situation is different vhook is crap, lavfi is good.
We need to do one thing in concept, _enable_ lavfi in ffmpeg and ffplay.
I asked you several times what was needed to actually _do_ this.

You keep saying that we must _drop_ vhook. I'd like a '+' not a '-' here.

Baptiste COUDURIER                              GnuPG Key Id: 0x5C1ABAAA
Key fingerprint                 8D77134D20CC9220201FC5DB0AC9325C5C1ABAAA
checking for life_signs in -lkenny... no
FFmpeg maintainer                                  http://www.ffmpeg.org

More information about the ffmpeg-devel mailing list