On Sat, Apr 28, 2012 at 9:32 PM, Hans-Christoph Steiner <h...@at.or.at> wrote: > > On Apr 28, 2012, at 3:25 AM, Reinhard Tartler wrote: > >> On Sat, Apr 28, 2012 at 3:08 AM, Hans-Christoph Steiner <h...@at.or.at> >> wrote: >>> >>> On Apr 26, 2012, at 3:31 PM, Reinhard Tartler wrote: >>> >>>> On Thu, Apr 26, 2012 at 6:18 PM, Hans-Christoph Steiner <h...@at.or.at> >>>> wrote: >>>>> ffmpeg provides many things that >>>>> libav does not. For example, I have written an audio redaction plugin for >>>>> ffmpeg. Such a plugin is not possible in libav. >>>> >>>> Please elaborate. What makes this impossible. Maybe you can point to >>>> your plugin? >>> >>> From what I can tell, they improved the audio plugin API in ffmpeg 0.9 >>> quite a bit. When I was programming my plugin, I looked at both libav and >>> ffmpeg. It wasn't until I looked at ffmpeg 0.9 that it seemed feasible. I >>> attached my plugin source code: >> >> Oh, you're talking about libavfilter. Well, so far there is not a >> single application in debian that uses it, so it clearly wasn't a >> priority for me. It is true that lavfi has more functionality in >> ffmpeg, espc. since stefano has implemented his audio filtering work >> only after the split. On the libav side, I'd suggest talking to anton >> about this. He is very open and helpful, so why don't you try to catch >> him on irc, show him the plugin source code and see if he can port it >> to libav's libavfilter?
Ahem, XBMC uses libavfilter. XBMC would like to have buffersink filter merged into libav. We would also like all the other new changes in libavfilter merged into libav as well (wherever possible). See [1] on what it's like to support both libav and ffmpeg. I already mentioned this in #libav-devel and was told Anton is working on it. Not trolling here, just saying. > There is indeed at least one application that does use libavfilter, and that > is the ffmpeg command line tool. I think that's how most people use the > functions in libavfilter. > > There are going to be differences between ffmpeg and there are going to solid > reasons to use one or the other. So it seems futile to me to ask the devs to > make them the same thing when the devs just split up over that very issue. > > I should add, since this came up in the discussion related to > debian-multimedia.org, that this discussion about ffmpeg and libav should not > be taken to mean that I am arguing against the proposals related to > debian-multimedia.org. I have also been burned by debian-multimedia.org > package conflicts, and at the same time I think that the > debian-multimedia.org packages are a valuable resource. I think it is a good > idea to make debian-multimedia.org more distinct from Debian itself, and > also, it is a good idea to try to get as much of the debian-multimedia.org > packages into Debian as possible. So I support the DPL's statement on that > specific topic. > > .hc > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > "[T]he greatest purveyor of violence in the world today [is] my own > government." - Martin Luther King, Jr. > > > > > _______________________________________________ > pkg-multimedia-maintainers mailing list > pkg-multimedia-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org > http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pkg-multimedia-maintainers 1. https://github.com/xbmc/xbmc/pull/629/files -- ~ Andres _______________________________________________ pkg-multimedia-maintainers mailing list pkg-multimedia-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pkg-multimedia-maintainers
