Loïc Minier wrote: > On Sun, Jan 08, 2006, Josh Triplett wrote: >>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 does indeed seem like "some other advantage". :) >>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. OK. Well, in the absence of someone pointing to some part of the code that is non-free, I'm inclined to believe the Free licensing put in place by upstream, for now. >>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. Ah, I see. Does that include the -bad and -ugly sets of plugins? >>> 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. Cool. >>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 Thanks! - Josh Triplett
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
