On 04/25/2018 10:14 PM, Peter Kovacs wrote: > Does it make sense to reorg the gstreamer module into an extention? > We could then have multiple versions of it. > > I mean after all this is only a optional feature, thats important to > some not all.
I think this idea is very good and deserves serious consideration. Thanks for bringing it up. > > On 25.04.2018 16:18, Jim Jagielski wrote: >> I think this shows that we need to come to *some* consensus on >> how to handle the gstreamer stuff. Either we provide both CentOS6 >> and Ubuntu builds to our community or we fold in the proposed >> gstreamer "work-around" which makes it a purely runtime >> concern. >> >> I would love to see how far we can go with the latter, but I am >> loath to volunteer someone else to "do the work" since I am >> unsure what the exact status of the patch is, how to fold it >> into trunk and how to handle building with the patch folded in. >> >> I know that there are other issues related to being at the stage >> to branch AOO420 from trunk but this, to me, seems like the >> priority at this point. >> >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org >> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org >> > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org > -- ------------------------------------------ MzK "Less is MORE." --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
