On Fri, 2007-08-31 at 18:58 +0200, Thomas Wehrspann wrote: > On Wednesday 29 August 2007 10:22, Francesco Romani wrote: > > I've mentioned libmkv above([1]). It comes out from handbrake > > (http://handbrake.m0k.org) > > camp. I believe those guys are doing really well on some fields, and > > libmkv is one of those fields. Archive can be found here: > > http://download.m0k.org/handbrake/contrib/libmkv-0.6.1.2.tar.gz > > It is still incomplete, but is compact, is GPL (even I'd like more > > LGPL) looks clean, looks nice, and I want to use it and, very likely, > > to bundle with transcode. > > But I don't want a fork of this code, so a careful plan is needed here. > Don't you think bundling third party libraries is problematic?
Yes I do think like that. > E.g. Lets assume the third party library has a security relevant bug and the > developer released a new version with a fix, then we are forced to release a > new transcode version as well! > Also we have to constantly monitor the development of those libraries. > > Of course bundling it is one external dependency less, but i don't think this > is the right way. There is a tradeoff to evaluate (as usual). Let me write down some key points: * I'm personally interested in learning about matroska container and in developing a library like this. * I surely recognize all drawbacks in bundling that you've point out. * libmkv isn't widespread, and very likely will slowly be (of course I hope I'm wrong here :) ). * libmkv has not (yet?) a dedicated website/community/public repository, or I just not found them so far; It will likely become an handbrake sideproject, much like avilib is for transcode. * I DO NOT want to fork libmkv or restart from scratch unless I have any other choice. Most answers to above point will be found by talking with handbrake people, and of course I'd love to do so after 1.1.0 progressed a bit more. Bests, -- Francesco Romani // Ikitt [ Out of memory. ~ We wish to hold the whole sky, ~ But we never will. ]
