Re: [KDE] Which Phonon? Phonon backend - GStreamer or Xine?
On Thursday 01 October 2009 03:02:04 Kevin Kofler wrote: Jaroslav Reznik wrote: That's not about standardize on GTK+ That was just an example of how one size fits it all doesn't always work when it comes to libraries, there will always be more than one library for some purposes. We should choose better technology over politics. That's exactly why I voted for Phonon-Xine in the meeting. ;-) All the world must use GStreamer == politics Phonon-Xine is considered by Phonon upstream to be the better technology. By one developer who admits that Phonon is dying slowly and not developed anymore ;-) No, I don't want one multimedia framework rule them all but currently it's the best what we have (I'm not talking about Phonon backend - just GStreamer). In case of better framework in the future I believe I'd be one of first supporters (even it could bring troubles to Fedora). Jaroslav Kevin Kofler -- Jaroslav Řezník jrez...@redhat.com Associate Software Engineer - Base Operating Systems Brno Office: +420 532 294 275 Mobile: +420 731 455 332 Red Hat, Inc. http://cz.redhat.com/ -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
Re: [KDE] Which Phonon? Phonon backend - GStreamer or Xine?
Lennart Poettering wrote: Haha. So the major 'advantage' of Phonon that it would allow replacing the backends as time progresses without breaking the KDE apps using them now officially is proven to be bogus. The KDE/Qt folks were so afraid of a media engine breaking API so that they created their abstraction thing and now break API of that one more often then the media engines themselves do. KDE is going to support Phonon for at least the whole KDE 4 cycle (which is planned to be quite long as neither Qt nor KDE sees an immediate need for an API-breaking version) as part of the API compatibility promise, and there is also strong active development ongoing on the KDE side, so it won't be deprecated on the KDE side and chances are it will still be there in future major versions of KDE (e.g. KDE 5) as well (though at that point, API changes can happen). (But of course this development currently focuses on the xine-lib backend, which is the backend KDE recommends. Though there are developers from e.g. Mandriva interested in improving the GStreamer one, too.) What is likely to happen is that Phonon is going to be deprecated on the Qt side, and Qt's bundled copy of Phonon might end up not getting updated, too. But that's one of the reasons we decided to ship Phonon from its own SRPM again in yesterday's meeting. Phonon possibly becoming deprecated in Qt is completely irrelevant for KDE application developers as it is still the preferred solution for multimedia in KDE and will remain so for the foreseeable future. There's a general rule in KDE: if there's a KDE class and a Qt class doing the same thing, always use the KDE class unless it explicitly says it's deprecated in favor of the Qt one. If Qt comes up with their own multimedia framework, multimedia will just be one more instance of this rule. Kevin Kofler -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
Re: [KDE] Which Phonon? Phonon backend - GStreamer or Xine?
Jaroslav Reznik wrote: Another interesting thing is PA Phonon integration work by Colin Guthrie (see the link in my first message). Phonon just as wrapper/thin client for PA with nicer Qt like API. I like this idea. That's not what his current work does, and it's not really possible as PA doesn't do decoding, so you'd still need some decoding library. Colin Guthrie's branch still uses GStreamer or xine-lib (he's currently working with both backends because he knows both are used). What it adds is that PA sinks show up as Phonon devices so you can choose where to direct your output to, as opposed to the one big PulseAudio device we currently have (where it just uses the sink set as default in PA). I suppose he's also going to tag the streams with the PA stream type matching the Phonon stream type the application sets, if he doesn't already. So this lets you use Phonon's flexibility (directing specific types of streams to specific outputs) while still using PulseAudio, you don't have to choose one or the other anymore. Kevin Kofler -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
Re: [KDE] Which Phonon? Phonon backend - GStreamer or Xine?
On Tuesday 29 Sep 2009 16:03:54 Jaroslav Reznik wrote: We, KDE SIG, are considering which backend should be default for Phonon in Fedora. Seems like it's not easy to agree on final decision @ KDE SIG meetings, we'd like to summarize what's the problem, some backends facts (please correct me, comment, add, etc.) and we'd like to hear comments from outer KDE SIG universe, from you, Fedora developers users, too. Just one comment: gapless playback. ;) I've noticed from my testing of amorok - phonon-backend-gstreamer - pulseaudio that gapless playback doesn't work seamlessly. Especially noticeable with a live album where there is a stutter, click or pop between tracks when using the gstreamer backend, and that doesn't happen with the xine backend. Not quite sure where to point the finger, amarok or phonon-backend- gstreamer, just thought I'd mention it. Regards Clive -- Clive Messer cl...@vacuumtube.org.uk -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
Re: [KDE] Which Phonon? Phonon backend - GStreamer or Xine?
2009/9/30 Lennart Poettering mzerq...@0pointer.de: On Tue, 29.09.09 22:46, Kevin Kofler (kevin.kof...@chello.at) wrote: Lennart Poettering wrote: Uh. Nokia stands pretty firmly behind gst. As do most embedded folks. Behind GStreamer, sure. Behind Phonon (and thus also Phonon-GStreamer), not so much. They're currently using it, but there are people working on the Qt Mobility project talking about replacing Phonon with something else (another abstraction layer, again around native backends (GStreamer in the GNU/Linux case), I really don't see what the advantage would be over Phonon). Haha. So the major 'advantage' of Phonon that it would allow replacing the backends as time progresses without breaking the KDE apps using them now officially is proven to be bogus. The KDE/Qt folks were so afraid of a media engine breaking API so that they created their abstraction thing and now break API of that one more often then the media engines themselves do. Do I hear an I told you so!? Abstractionitis is an illness, not a remedy. People who live in a glass houses shouldn't throw stones. -- LG Thomas Dubium sapientiae initium -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
Re: [KDE] Which Phonon? Phonon backend - GStreamer or Xine?
On Wednesday 30 September 2009 15:33:43 Kevin Kofler wrote: Jaroslav Reznik wrote: Another interesting thing is PA Phonon integration work by Colin Guthrie (see the link in my first message). Phonon just as wrapper/thin client for PA with nicer Qt like API. I like this idea. That's not what his current work does, and it's not really possible as PA doesn't do decoding, so you'd still need some decoding library. Of course, I know! Colin Guthrie's branch still uses GStreamer or xine-lib (he's currently working with both backends because he knows both are used). What it adds is that PA sinks show up as Phonon devices so you can choose where to direct your output to, as opposed to the one big PulseAudio device we currently Yes, he does. have (where it just uses the sink set as default in PA). I suppose he's also going to tag the streams with the PA stream type matching the Phonon stream type the application sets, if he doesn't already. So this lets you use Phonon's flexibility (directing specific types of streams to specific outputs) while still using PulseAudio, you don't have to choose one or the other anymore. And that's what I have been talking - it does not duplicate PA, but just wraps PA. Jaroslav Kevin Kofler -- Jaroslav Řezník jrez...@redhat.com Associate Software Engineer - Base Operating Systems Brno Office: +420 532 294 275 Mobile: +420 731 455 332 Red Hat, Inc. http://cz.redhat.com/ -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
Re: [KDE] Which Phonon? Phonon backend - GStreamer or Xine?
On Wed, 30.09.09 15:41, Thomas Janssen (thom...@fedoraproject.org) wrote: Haha. So the major 'advantage' of Phonon that it would allow replacing the backends as time progresses without breaking the KDE apps using them now officially is proven to be bogus. The KDE/Qt folks were so afraid of a media engine breaking API so that they created their abstraction thing and now break API of that one more often then the media engines themselves do. Do I hear an I told you so!? Abstractionitis is an illness, not a remedy. People who live in a glass houses shouldn't throw stones. Are you suggesting PA was an abstraction layer? Maybe it can act as one, but that is only a side effect, not its only purpose. Unlike for example Phonon. An abstraction layer's main purpose it to abstract differences of what is below, and as hence usually is a least common denominator of what is below, but certainly nothing that adds features. PA OTOH extends what is below, it adds features. But heck, this discussion is pretty academic and off-topic. Let's end this here. Lennart -- Lennart PoetteringRed Hat, Inc. lennart [at] poettering [dot] net http://0pointer.net/lennart/ GnuPG 0x1A015CC4 -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
Re: [KDE] Which Phonon? Phonon backend - GStreamer or Xine?
On Wed, 30.09.09 10:15, Jaroslav Reznik (jrez...@redhat.com) wrote: So where's the problem? There are two Phonons - one in Qt, one in KDE. I don't like this schizophrenia. This should be solved but now we have to live with one or another - that's why we brought this issue to the world. Maybe KDE should add another abstraction layer on top of the various Phonons which abstracts the differences between them! [1] But I'm happy you have joined this discussion as PA developer. How do you see PA support in GStreamer and Xine? Functionality, features, support - regarding to Fedora development as this could influence our final decision. Isn't it obvious where the good stuff is? Just compare how many commits happened in the last months to the xine-lib hg and how many to the gst git trees. gst has a much much larger developer community and multiple companies backing it. It's the only practical way to get licenses MP3 codecs for Linux. And it is more powerful than xine in many ways. Also, my cooperation with the gst devs is much closer. I have contributed some patches to xine a while back too, but since I don't use it it is much more lacking. Finally, Gst is used by Gnome. Would be great if this could be another place were we could not only cooperate on specs but also actually share code. Another interesting thing is PA Phonon integration work by Colin Guthrie (see the link in my first message). Phonon just as wrapper/thin client for PA with nicer Qt like API. I like this idea. Uh, PA is a PCM sound server. Phonon an abstraction layer for general media streaming. Those are different things. Yu can wrap PA and gstreamer in phonon, but just wrapping PA alone won't fly. Lennart [1] That was a joke. -- Lennart PoetteringRed Hat, Inc. lennart [at] poettering [dot] net http://0pointer.net/lennart/ GnuPG 0x1A015CC4 -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
Re: [KDE] Which Phonon? Phonon backend - GStreamer or Xine?
On Wed, 30.09.09 13:53, Rahul Sundaram (sunda...@fedoraproject.org) wrote: On 09/30/2009 01:45 PM, Jaroslav Reznik wrote: So where's the problem? There are two Phonons - one in Qt, one in KDE. I don't like this schizophrenia. This should be solved but now we have to live with one or another - that's why we brought this issue to the world. The problem is that Nokia now seems to be developing yet another abstraction layer. So we will have to be dealing the Phonon in KDE, Phonon in Qt and whatever Nokia brings up next and all the possible backends. The number of different paths that requires comprehensive testing has exploded. We are also debating which backend to use as the default for a long time and as usual, switching backends is exchanging one set of bugs with another so neither is going to be ideal. I would prefer Gstreamer as the backend simply because users can install a set of plugins (third party repo or Fluendo) and have their content play in all the different desktop environments. We can fix bugs once in Gstreamer and be done with it. However that depends on how much testing this backend has received and what bugs have been found and how severe they are. This is a bit of a chicken-and-egg problem: if you don't activate gst noone will test it. But you don't want to activate it by default without testing. We're Fedora, the distro which is always a bit ahead of the other distributions, aren't we? So I think it would make a lot of sense to switch to make our distro Gst-only asap. Eventually this move will have to happen anyway. And if it's not us who does the switch first, who will? Lennart -- Lennart PoetteringRed Hat, Inc. lennart [at] poettering [dot] net http://0pointer.net/lennart/ GnuPG 0x1A015CC4 -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
Re: [KDE] Which Phonon? Phonon backend - GStreamer or Xine?
On 09/30/2009 09:40 PM, Lennart Poettering wrote: This is a bit of a chicken-and-egg problem: if you don't activate gst noone will test it. But you don't want to activate it by default without testing. True but we do have Phonon using Gstreamer as the backend in Rawhide. If it has severe problems, unmaintained and we have noone willing to fix it, then using Xine might be ok. Before we comment further, it would be useful to know what the known important bugs are. Rahul -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
Re: [KDE] Which Phonon? Phonon backend - GStreamer or Xine?
Lennart Poettering wrote: So I think it would make a lot of sense to switch to make our distro Gst-only asap. Eventually this move will have to happen anyway. Uh, I have to disagree there. It is not our job as distribution packagers to dictate to upstream developers what multimedia library they use. If an upstream project XYZ requires e.g. libnobody-else-uses-me (fictional name) for multimedia and XYZ is worth packaging, we'll want libnobody-else-uses-me packaged too. At best we can try to get mainstream applications ported to a common framework (like we did for spellchecking (hunspell), in fact I set up KDE to use hunspell everywhere, but there are still quite some niche apps outside of GNOME and KDE using aspell), but even that doesn't always make sense: for example, the crypto consolidation (NSS) is just not working (OpenSSL is the de-facto standard upstream projects are used to work with and many still support only that) and suggesting all GUI apps to standardize on GTK+ would be a complete no-go. Kevin Kofler -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
Re: [KDE] Which Phonon? Phonon backend - GStreamer or Xine?
On Wednesday 30 September 2009 19:11:36 Kevin Kofler wrote: Lennart Poettering wrote: So I think it would make a lot of sense to switch to make our distro Gst-only asap. Eventually this move will have to happen anyway. Uh, I have to disagree there. It is not our job as distribution packagers to dictate to upstream developers what multimedia library they use. If an upstream project XYZ requires e.g. libnobody-else-uses-me (fictional name) for multimedia and XYZ is worth packaging, we'll want libnobody-else-uses-me packaged too. At best we can try to get mainstream applications ported to a common framework (like we did for spellchecking (hunspell), in fact I set up KDE to use hunspell everywhere, but there are still quite some niche apps outside of GNOME and KDE using aspell), but even that doesn't always make sense: for example, the crypto consolidation (NSS) is just not working (OpenSSL is the de-facto standard upstream projects are used to work with and many still support only that) and suggesting all GUI apps to standardize on GTK+ would be a complete no-go. That's not about standardize on GTK+ (yes, it would be nice world with Qt Everywhere :D) but support best supported framework. There's no problem with not supported GStreamer - it's supported in Phonon, with some question marks. So now once we have lot of stuff on Phonon, we can make Xine lib optional. Some time ago it was much more better than GStreamer, now GStreamer is better and more supported. We should choose better technology over politics. Jaroslav Kevin Kofler -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
Re: [KDE] Which Phonon? Phonon backend - GStreamer or Xine?
On Wed, 2009-09-30 at 00:11 +0200, Lennart Poettering wrote: On Tue, 29.09.09 22:46, Kevin Kofler (kevin.kof...@chello.at) wrote: Behind GStreamer, sure. Behind Phonon (and thus also Phonon-GStreamer), not so much. They're currently using it, but there are people working on the Qt Mobility project talking about replacing Phonon with something else (another abstraction layer, again around native backends (GStreamer in the GNU/Linux case), I really don't see what the advantage would be over Phonon). Haha. So the major 'advantage' of Phonon that it would allow replacing the backends as time progresses without breaking the KDE apps using them now officially is proven to be bogus. The KDE/Qt folks were so afraid of a media engine breaking API so that they created their abstraction thing and now break API of that one more often then the media engines themselves do. Do I hear an I told you so!? Abstractionitis is an illness, not a remedy. whatever the validity of this, it rather looks like sandbagging the intended discussion, and doesn't seem to be directly relevant to Fedora development. perhaps it should be discussed on a more appropriate list, or privately with Kevin - at the very least, in a separate thread. -- Adam Williamson Fedora QA Community Monkey IRC: adamw | Fedora Talk: adamwill AT fedoraproject DOT org http://www.happyassassin.net -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
Re: [KDE] Which Phonon? Phonon backend - GStreamer or Xine?
FJR == Jaroslav Reznik jrez...@redhat.com writes: FJR * Phonon backend not as mature as Xine one FJR - missing functionality Perhaps you could supply more detail as to which functionality is missing? - J -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
Re: [KDE] Which Phonon? Phonon backend - GStreamer or Xine?
Jaroslav Reznik wrote: GStreamer backend facts: * now default one in Fedora (F12, rawhide) * GStreamer is Fedora's default multimedia framework - better support from Fedora side? (PA, releases) * Phonon backend not as mature as Xine one - missing functionality More bugs too. * Maybe more support from upstream developers in the future? [1] * Nokia is upstream But nobody knows for how long because Nokia is working on an alternative multimedia framework for Qt as part of the Qt Mobility project. Kevin Kofler -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
Re: [KDE] Which Phonon? Phonon backend - GStreamer or Xine?
On Tue, 29.09.09 18:23, Kevin Kofler (kevin.kof...@chello.at) wrote: Jaroslav Reznik wrote: GStreamer backend facts: * now default one in Fedora (F12, rawhide) * GStreamer is Fedora's default multimedia framework - better support from Fedora side? (PA, releases) * Phonon backend not as mature as Xine one - missing functionality More bugs too. * Maybe more support from upstream developers in the future? [1] * Nokia is upstream But nobody knows for how long because Nokia is working on an alternative multimedia framework for Qt as part of the Qt Mobility project. Uh. Nokia stands pretty firmly behind gst. As do most embedded folks. Lennart -- Lennart PoetteringRed Hat, Inc. lennart [at] poettering [dot] net http://0pointer.net/lennart/ GnuPG 0x1A015CC4 -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
Re: [KDE] Which Phonon? Phonon backend - GStreamer or Xine?
On Tue, 2009-09-29 at 17:03 +0200, Jaroslav Reznik wrote: Hi! We, KDE SIG, are considering which backend should be default for Phonon in Fedora. Seems like it's not easy to agree on final decision @ KDE SIG meetings, we'd like to summarize what's the problem, some backends facts (please correct me, comment, add, etc.) and we'd like to hear comments from outer KDE SIG universe, from you, Fedora developers users, too. First question is which Phonon use - there are two actually - one is part of Qt, one is part of KDE. Upstream recommends building/packaging phonon from qt, and building/packaging backends separately. Some backends facts... GStreamer backend facts: * now default one in Fedora (F12, rawhide) * GStreamer is Fedora's default multimedia framework - better support from Fedora side? (PA, releases) * Phonon backend not as mature as Xine one - missing functionality It would help to note exactly what functionality is still missing with the gstreamer backend. Last time I dealt with this issue was around KDE 4.0 / 4.1 in Mandriva, at which point the gstreamer backend still had significant problems, such as being entirely unable to play audio CDs. My take on this issue would depend to quite some extent on the significance of the remaining functionality gap between gstreamer and xine backends. -- Adam Williamson Fedora QA Community Monkey IRC: adamw | Fedora Talk: adamwill AT fedoraproject DOT org http://www.happyassassin.net -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
Re: [KDE] Which Phonon? Phonon backend - GStreamer or Xine?
Lennart Poettering wrote: Uh. Nokia stands pretty firmly behind gst. As do most embedded folks. Behind GStreamer, sure. Behind Phonon (and thus also Phonon-GStreamer), not so much. They're currently using it, but there are people working on the Qt Mobility project talking about replacing Phonon with something else (another abstraction layer, again around native backends (GStreamer in the GNU/Linux case), I really don't see what the advantage would be over Phonon). Kevin Kofler -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
Re: [KDE] Which Phonon? Phonon backend - GStreamer or Xine?
On Wed, Sep 30, 2009 at 8:11 AM, Lennart Poettering mzerq...@0pointer.de wrote: Do I hear an I told you so!? Abstractionitis is an illness, not a remedy. Aren't you the pulseaudio developer? /runs and hides -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
