[FFmpeg-devel] [PATCH] Dynamic plugins loading

[Michael Niedermayer]

On Wed, Nov 03, 2010 at 12:20:34AM +0200, Felipe Contreras wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 2, 2010 at 11:44 PM, Michael Niedermayer <michaelni at gmx.at> wrote:
> > On Tue, Nov 02, 2010 at 11:27:57PM +0200, Felipe Contreras wrote:
> >> On Tue, Nov 2, 2010 at 10:14 PM, Michael Niedermayer <michaelni at gmx.at> wrote:
> >> > On Tue, Nov 02, 2010 at 03:37:54PM -0400, Ronald S. Bultje wrote:
> >> >> On Tue, Nov 2, 2010 at 3:31 PM, Felipe Contreras
> >> >> <felipe.contreras at gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >> > So what you are saying is: "we don't care about linux". Ok, that's good to know.
> >> >>
> >> >> Fedora != Linux. I'm saying Fedora doesn't have enough leverage to
> >> >> force us to shoot ourselves.
> >> >
> >> > Carefull ronald, you are falling in that guys trap
> >> > ffmpeg works fine on fedora
> >> > noone from fedora asked us to change anything
> >> > so its not even "we dont care about fedora"
> >> > we do care about all distros and their maintainers official requests.
> >>
> >> There's no FFmpeg in Fedora:
> >> https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/acls/list/*ffmpeg*
> >
> > theres a compiler in fedora, and theres ./configure && make
> 
> That doesn't say anything. If you can compile FFmpeg on Windows that
> doesn't mean Microsoft has no problem with FFmpeg.

yes and it doesnt matter
ffmpeg exists and works on ms windows, so does it on fedora.
We dont live in soviet russia where someones "problems" dictate what the users
can use


> 
> >> Nobody has asked you to change anything because they decided not to
> >> use it, and instead use GStreamer with libraries such as libvorbis and
> >> libvpx.
> >
> > did they obtain libvpx patent licenses too or do they belive that the code
> > is not patent encumbered?
> 
> Why would that even matter for this discussion?

because it was argued the inclusion was related to patent encumberedness
and inclusion of libvpx is a act of hypocrisy in that light.
Not that it matters but its entertaining


> Anyway, it's about
> philosophy, not legality.

exactly, the discussion is about some quite retarded philosophy neither
technically nor legally real things.
I wonder if theres a relation to fedoras market share and that


> 
> >> *If* patent encumbered codecs could be installed as plugins, then the
> >> situation might change.
> >
> > you should talk to the people from fedora and find out what their point of
> > view is on these things and not argue here that they _might_ something
> 
> There is no other reason why a distribution would not be shipping
> FFmpeg. I can tell you this is the reason in MeeGo.

There are many reasons, for example there might be a distro that is 
targeted toward devices that have no multimedia capabilities.
That said discussion with MeeGo or fedora people is welcome as that may lead
to improvments in ffmpeg as well as in MeeGo/fedora

OTOH discussion with you is welcome for the entertainment value only,
i have no hope that this could lead to any improvments in ffmpeg.


>
> Anyway, if the Fedora board officially requests a pluggable
> architecture, will it happen?

Discussion between the ffmpeg developers and the board would happen in this
case so we better understand the reasons and needs and if another solution is
maybe supperior for fedora.

[...]
-- 
Michael     GnuPG fingerprint: 9FF2128B147EF6730BADF133611EC787040B0FAB

There will always be a question for which you do not know the correct awnser.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 198 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
URL: <http://lists.mplayerhq.hu/pipermail/ffmpeg-devel/attachments/20101103/c1b913f5/attachment.pgp>