[FFmpeg-devel] [PATCH 2/3] lavfi/loudnorm: add an internal libebur128 library

Kyle Swanson k at ylo.ph
Tue Nov 8 17:39:05 EET 2016

On Mon, Nov 7, 2016 at 6:00 PM, Marton Balint <cus at passwd.hu> wrote:
> On Fri, 4 Nov 2016, Marton Balint wrote:
>> On Thu, 3 Nov 2016, Hendrik Leppkes wrote:
>>> On Mon, Oct 17, 2016 at 5:20 PM, Moritz Barsnick <barsnick at gmx.net>
>>> wrote:
>>>> On Mon, Oct 17, 2016 at 17:09:15 +0200, wm4 wrote:
>>>>> Does this copy parts of libebur128 to FFmpeg?
>>>>> Why?
>>>> There was a long discussion regarding this patch:
>>>> http://lists.ffmpeg.org/pipermail/ffmpeg-devel/2016-April/192668.html
>>>> (in summary: "please don't require yet another small external library,
>>>> rather port it to ffmpeg and maintain it") leading to this one:
>>> The generic idea was not to just copy/paste an external library into
>>> internal code, but extend the ebur128 code we already have - at least
>>> that way we get code written by one of our maintainers, code he knows
>>> and can properly maintain.
>> I copied the external library because we needed an API. The way the
>> internals work, I used the library code because it was simply easier, than
>> factoring out f_ebur128 stuff, also there are some features which
>> f_ebur128.c does not have (variable sample rate support), and there was the
>> licensing issue GPL v.s. LGPL.
>>> If you just copy the implementation of a library, you might as well
>>> just use that library - thats what it exists for. Why do we want to
>>> increase the maintenance burden of our project when other people (ie.
>>> the authors of libebur128) are already doing it as well?
>> In general I agree with people who think that for small code, it is better
>> to integrate it into our codebase, because
>> - it can benefit from features we already have (e.g. resampling)
>> - makes it easier for developers to work on features based on this
>> - code gets more review than code in a small 3rd party library
>> - code and/or improvements have stronger requirements performance-wise
>> - code is better audited (Coverity, etc)
>> Yes, some additional maintenance burden is the price we pay for this,
>> which is IMHO in this case is acceptable.
> Is it fine to apply, or we should put this to a vote?

Give me another day to review the patch. Meant look at this last weekend.

> Thanks,
> Marton
> _______________________________________________
> ffmpeg-devel mailing list
> ffmpeg-devel at ffmpeg.org
> http://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-devel

More information about the ffmpeg-devel mailing list