2015-07-21 13:18 GMT+02:00 Murray Cumming <[email protected]>: > On Tue, 2015-07-21 at 13:00 +0200, Marcin Kolny wrote: > > Hi, > > As far as you probably know, gstreamermm wrapper currently wraps > > repositories gstreamer and gst-plugins-base. > > Probably because you can't do much without -base. > Not really, "average developer" usually uses data structures defined in gstreamer repository (gst-plugins-base is useful if you want to write your own plugins), that's why I'm wondering why gstreamermm contains gst-plugins-base wrappers.
> > > I want to wrap more repositories (gst-plugins-good, gst-plugins-bad > > etc.). As gst-plugins-base is wrapped in gstreamermm repository, I'd > > wrap the other repos in the same repository. However, I found > > somewhere on the internet, that long time ago existed repository > > gstreamermm-plugins-good, which probably was a wrapper for > > gst-plugins-good repository. > > Now I'm confused, what should I do: > > - create new repositories (gstreamermm-plugins-good, > > gstreamermm-plugins-bad), and move gst-plugins-base wrapper from > > gstreamermm to gstreamermm-plugins-base > > - wrap everything in one repository (gstreamermm). > > I was looking for any rules, but I didn't find anything. > > I'd like to ask more experienced mm-developers for help make a good > > Is there any reason not to just update those existing repositories? > The modularity exists in the C API for good reasons, so I guess it > should exist in the C++ API. > The only advantage of keeping everything in one repository is easier maintenance. Ah, and the second reason - gst-plugins-base wrapper is already there. > > -- > Murray Cumming > [email protected] > www.murrayc.com > > > -- Best regards, Marcin Kolny
_______________________________________________ gtkmm-list mailing list [email protected] https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gtkmm-list
