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

[Benoit Fouet]

Diego Biurrun wrote :
> On Mon, Jun 08, 2009 at 01:03:16PM -0700, Baptiste Coudurier wrote:
>   
>> On 6/8/2009 12:37 PM, Diego Biurrun wrote:
>>     
>>> On Mon, Jun 08, 2009 at 12:02:00PM -0700, Baptiste Coudurier wrote:
>>>       
>>>> On 6/8/2009 3:28 AM, Ramiro Polla wrote:
>>>>         
>>>>> On Wed, May 20, 2009 at 7:07 AM, Benoit Fouet<benoit.fouet at free.fr> wrote:
>>>>>           
>>>>>> On 05/20/2009 11:55 AM, Diego Biurrun wrote:
>>>>>>             
>>>>>>> On Wed, May 20, 2009 at 11:01:48AM +0200, Benoit Fouet wrote:
>>>>>>>               
>>>>>>>> On 05/19/2009 07:38 PM, Diego Biurrun wrote:
>>>>>>>>                 
>>>>>>>>> Now that OpenCORE AMR support is just around the corner, what about
>>>>>>>>> libamr?  I'm in favor of removing support for it.  It's nonfree and it's
>>>>>>>>> crap and we have a free replacement.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> There is a catch: libamr supports AMR-WB encoding, OpenCORE does not.
>>>>>>>>> IMO we can disregard this.  Hopefully it will spur the development of a
>>>>>>>>> native replacement.  I do not plan to remove libamr support from the 0.5
>>>>>>>>> branch, so it will always be available there.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>                   
>>>>>>>> or we can only keep the support of the WB encoder, depending on non-free
>>>>>>>> flag ?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>                 
>>>>>>> You don't think keeping it in the 0.5 branch will be enough?
>>>>>>>               
>>>>>> it might be... I may be speaking for people who do not exist anyway
>>>>>> (users of AMR-WB encoding feature)
>>>>>>             
>>>>> In my win32 builds[0] I don't include libamr. The only people that
>>>>> bother to contact me asking specifically for amr encoding are
>>>>> commercial. If they spent their effort on an open source encoder that
>>>>> would be much better. So, I'm for this removal...
>>>>>           
>>>> Or they can stop using FFmpeg.
>>>>         
>>> Your point being?
>>>       
>> My point being that we lost one user, which we could have easily kept.
>>     
>
> Sorry, but this is nonsense.  There is absolutely no indication that
> they stopped using FFmpeg because AMR support was not available.  And
> what else would they use?  There is no alternative that comes even close
> to FFmpeg's feature set.
>
>   

if one of the feature they really need is AMR-WB encoding, they will.
(I'm thinking of users that use it to create content for their mobile
phones for instance (and actually, this is the only example I can think
of :) )
> Also, the primary goal of this project is not to get as many users as
> possible at any cost.  Otherwise we would have included a DLL loader a
> long time ago.
>
>   

as that was already mentioned earlier, there is no real cost, as the
encoder is already in place.

Ben