On Tue, Feb 25, 2014 at 03:02:31PM +0200, Martin Storsjö wrote: > On Tue, 25 Feb 2014, Vittorio Giovara wrote: > > >--- > >This was identified as one of the last remaining functions that interweaved > >lavc and lavf badly, so at our fosdem meeting it was suggested to move the > >common parts into lavu. > > I'm not sure if I didn't listen carefully, somebody misunderstood > something or this was something that was discussed after I left for > the airport, but... > > What concrete problem does this solve? lavf and lavc have got some > tight dependencies but I don't see this solving or changing any of > them in any significant way.
Yes, probably we discussed this after you left. The topic of disentangling lavc and lavf as a longterm goal came up and I think I mentioned that lavf uses the get_bits/put_bits infrastructure from libavutil. Moving that to libavutil was considered one step in the long way towards disentangling the two libraries. > I'm not against it as a concept, but the exact reasonings need to be > explained in the patch, not just briefly summarized, because the > reasons behind the patch (and the issues you are trying to solve) > are way more important than the patch itself. Yes. I took this patch as an RFC though, where these details would be filled in later. Diego _______________________________________________ libav-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.libav.org/mailman/listinfo/libav-devel
