Hi, On Sun, Jan 08, 2006, Josh Triplett wrote: > Using a library is a certainly a reasonable idea; two questions: > 1) Do you mean "libspc" (which I haven't heard of and can't seem to > find) or libopenspc?
I meant libopenspc indeed. > 2) Anti Resonance's SPC emulator is generally considered the most > technically superior, both on the grounds of faithful reproduction and > possible enhancement; given that Anti Resonance's code and libopenspc > are equally non-portable, I don't think it's worth moving to a library > unless that library gives some other advantage. It seems reasonable to build against a shared library to ease security upgrades. > That's a more serious concern; however, the code appears to be Freely > licensed by upstream. Can you point to any particular issue or concern > you have, or that you've seen raised previously? No, I walked through the 0.8 bugs looking for things possibly obsolete in 0.10, and wanted to give you some feedback on the discussions I recall about that plugin. This was both on IRC and in the mailing-lists IIRC. > I did notice that spc didn't seem to be present in 0.10. I think this is due to stricter policy upstream: plugin have to be maintained actively by one person and blessed by some gstreamer hacker. I think SPC lacks the active maintenance right now. > > If you fixed configure.ac by: > > -GST_DOC() > > +GST_DOCBOOK_CHECK() > > > > Then this might be worthwhile to send upstream, could you explain how > > it break things to call GST_DOC instead of GST_DOCBOOK_CHECK? I > > certainly see it is wrong, but I had no problem with it until now. > I think it has already been fixed upstream, in newer versions than the > one currently in Debian. The issue is that GST_DOC was renamed to > GST_DOCBOOK_CHECK, but configure.ac wasn't updated accordingly. This > caused the immediately subsequent code to fail, which happened to be the > code which checked the target CPU to determine which arch-specific code > was acceptable; since SPC needs those target CPU variables set, it fails > unless this issue is fixed. Ok, I saw the rename in 0.10, but I only saw the GST_DOC() call in configure today. I'm likely to reupload a package to address that. > Might it be possible to include this EXTRA_PLUGINS support until spc can > be sufficiently fixed to be more suitable for building by default? It > would make enhancing and testing gstreamer0.8-spc significantly easier. That I've done in -4, but you replied faster than I uploaded. :-P Cheers, -- Loïc Minier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Current Earth status: NOT DESTROYED
