> -----Original Message----- > From: ffmpeg-devel [mailto:ffmpeg-devel-boun...@ffmpeg.org] On Behalf > Of Timo Rothenpieler > Sent: November 27, 2017 5:08 AM > To: ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org > Subject: Re: [FFmpeg-devel] AMD external header > > Am 27.11.2017 um 03:15 schrieb Mironov, Mikhail: > > Hi, > > I would like to summarize thoughts on several threads on this forum > > related to the issue of including AMD/AMF header file into FFmpeg source > tree. > > It looks like they reflect some policies formal or informal. > > Mark tried to create some policy regarding this issue but wasn't successful. > > I believe a policy is always created to reach some goal. > > So my summary will be in form of triad: > > policy->goal->possible action > > I will skip all arguments, you already read them. > > #1 > > policy: do not include external headers > > goal: minimize maintenance efforts and increase stability of the project > > action: remove NVidia headers > > #2 > > policy: keep certain headers in the tree based on some criteria > > goal: provide certain level of convenience for ordinary users > > action: include AMD header > > As I have stated before, I am fine with shipping the header, and would prefer > it over having to collect a bunch of headers from various repositories. > To limit it a bit, I'd say in-tree external headers should be limited to > header- > only interfaces to system-libraries(The nvidia and amd drivers count as > system libs) or other extreme cases like AviSynth.
This sounds like a good policy. How would we move from there on practical terms? > > > #3 > > policy: do whatever is needed to achieve the goal > > goal: achieve neutrality in relation to HW vendors > > action: remove NVidia headers or add AMD header > > Thanks, Mikhail _______________________________________________ ffmpeg-devel mailing list ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org http://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-devel
