[FFmpeg-devel] [PATCH] Dynamic plugins loading

[Felipe Contreras]

On Wed, Nov 3, 2010 at 4:10 AM, Michael Niedermayer <michaelni at gmx.at> wrote:
> 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:
>> >> 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 said FFmpeg cannot be used in Fedora, you are just avoiding the issue.

FFmpeg's lack of dynamic plugin loading prevents it from getting into
the Fedora distribution. Period.

>> >> 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

Well, libvpx is not patent encumbered, therefore they are not
hypocrites. You might disagree, but that doesn't make them hypocrites,
it would make them wrong. Please, don't make your own opinions define
other people's intentions. Also, it's not up to you to decide whether
they are right or wrong, only a court of law can decide that.

>> 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

So we come again to the same: you don't care about Fedora. Fedora has
a philosophy, and that's that.

Basically what you are saying is that Fedora needs to change their
philosophy in order to conform to FFmpeg.

>> >> *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.

Ah, so basically you are trolling. That explains why you say you care
about Fedora, but they are hypocrites, and have retarded philosophies
you don't care about.

>> 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.

Ok, ad-hominen it is then. I'll contact MeeGo and Fedora. Mind you,
they will probably tell you exactly the same thing.

-- 
Felipe Contreras