| 1 |
Kent Fredric wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Wed, 10 Jun 2020 20:25:20 +0200 |
| 3 |
> Michał Górny <mgorny@g.o> wrote: |
| 4 |
> |
| 5 |
>> The general purpose of codec project [2] is to maintain core libraries |
| 6 |
>> for various multimedia format encoder/decoder libraries. It's like |
| 7 |
>> gfx+sound+video except only for core packages and not every possible |
| 8 |
>> single viewer, player, editor, frontend... I believe that this specific |
| 9 |
>> focus make more sense than the wider projects, i.e. it is more likely |
| 10 |
>> than N people will actually co-maintain libraries used by many tools vs |
| 11 |
>> N people co-maintain 20 alternative sound players (when they are |
| 12 |
>> unlikely to use more than one at a time). |
| 13 |
> Somehow I get the impression that "codec" as a scope is still too general. |
| 14 |
> |
| 15 |
> For instance, people well acquainted with audio codecs aren't |
| 16 |
> necessarily well acquainted with video codecs, or image codecs. |
| 17 |
> |
| 18 |
> A package that only does audio-playback for instance, won't be of |
| 19 |
> interest to somebody who predominantly cares about video playback. |
| 20 |
> |
| 21 |
> I'm not entirely against it as a concept as-is, I just suspect it will |
| 22 |
> reiterate the previous problem. |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
As a user, how about media? Multimedia? Or would those interfere with |
| 26 |
other packages? |
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
I might add, regardless of name, will it be active enough to keep it |
| 29 |
alive or will it go the same as the last? |
| 30 |
|
| 31 |
Dale |
| 32 |
|
| 33 |
:-) :-) |
Archives