On Mon, May 23, 2016 at 01:24:02PM +0000, Gregory J Wolfe wrote: > > -----Original Message----- > > From: ffmpeg-devel [mailto:ffmpeg-devel-boun...@ffmpeg.org] On Behalf > > Of Hendrik Leppkes > > Sent: Saturday, May 21, 2016 3:25 AM > > To: FFmpeg development discussions and patches <ffmpeg- > > de...@ffmpeg.org> > > Subject: Re: [FFmpeg-devel] [PATCH] lavc/libopenh264enc: update to > > openh264 1.6 > > > > On Mon, Mar 7, 2016 at 6:05 PM, Stefano Sabatini <stefa...@gmail.com> > > wrote: > > > In particular, the slice mode API was changed in commit: > > > > > > commit 33c378f7b791310e4cb64b53e2bb8f3f3bded105 > > > Author: sijchen <sijc...@cisco.com> > > > Date: Tue Nov 10 09:50:06 2015 -0800 > > > > > > change API for slicing part for easier usage (the UseLoadBalancing > > > flag is > > still under working) > > > > > > This fixes compilation with latest version of openh264. > > > --- > > > > From the author of this wrapper: > > > > [20:23:22] <wbs> just fwiw, the openh264 patch that somebody just > > sent, for fixing compilation with 1.6 (which is not released) is just > > awful. it changes defaults for lots of options, it changes names for > > options, etc, all in one single patch (which breaks compilation with > > any earlier version) > > [20:23:47] <wbs> if one wants to add support for 1.6, it shouldn't > > break support for earlier versions. and 1.6 isn't released, so the > > actual api for that version may still change > > [20:24:06] <wbs> so I would just tell people to stick it and not try > > to "support" an unreleased version which is still open for changes > > > > I agree with this assessment, dropping support for any and all > > released versions of the library in favor of a unreleased > > in-development version seems bad. > > Can't we support both, and address his comments about changing the > > options etc? > > > > - Hendrik > > FWIW, we at Kodak Alaris are actively using openh264 1.6 (OK so it's > not officially released) with FFmpeg. I have manually applied the 1.6 > related patches, AND I have an FFmpeg change (soon to be submitted) > to support other new capabilities in 1.6. What I would like to see is > openh264 1.6 become an official release (soon!), with interface changes > conditionally compiled so as not to break builds using older versions. > Also, perhaps the pre-1.6 options could be transparently mapped into > the new 1.6 options so that there would be a smooth transition. > > If it would help move this along, I will tentatively volunteer to the do > some or all of the work.
it would be great to have support for both 1.6 and older versions [...] -- Michael GnuPG fingerprint: 9FF2128B147EF6730BADF133611EC787040B0FAB I know you won't believe me, but the highest form of Human Excellence is to question oneself and others. -- Socrates
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
_______________________________________________ ffmpeg-devel mailing list ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org http://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-devel
