[FFmpeg-devel] [RFC] the future of libamr

[Robert Swain]

Diego Biurrun wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 05, 2009 at 02:21:23PM +0100, Robert Swain wrote:
>> OK, then I guess the only issue is a feature regression in that 
>> libopencore-amrwb doesn't do encoding. As Diego points out, there's 
>> nothing stopping people from using FFmpeg 0.5 or a version of svn from 
>> before the libamr reference wrapper gets removed, but I'm not really 
>> fond of feature regressions. Is there any good reason not to keep the 
>> libamr-wb reference encoder wrapper?
> 
> May I suggest that you read the 25+ messages in this thread before
> restarting the discussion at square one?  Pros and cons have already
> been hashed out extensively and a consensus seemed to have been reached.
> If you have anything new to add, reply to the relevant subthread.  Just
> raising the same concerns over and over again is inconstructive and
> leads nowhere.

I had actually read them but had forgotten about them as I was out of 
the country so, I apologise for this. However, I didn't see a deadline 
set for consensus to be reached.

Benoit had some reservations about feature regression then decided it 
was OK, though I don't see him mention any compelling reason why he 
changed his mind other than that removing non-free components is good. 
Benoit?

Then Baptiste commented that he wasn't too keen on a feature regression 
and you stated that it seemed a consensus had been reached. Then 3 days 
after Baptiste's comment, you committed the OpenCORE support and said 
you were going to remove libamr. A consensus has not been reached if not 
everyone has accepted the same idea and it seems not everyone has.

I'm not sure how many people actually use AMR-WB encoding. I would guess 
the parties interested would be mostly commercial.

I don't really know what option is best. It's non-free but removing it 
would be a feature regression. Why did we have the AMR reference 
implementation wrapped in the first place if not having non-free stuff 
in FFmpeg was a major concern versus not having the feature?

Regards,
Rob