[FFmpeg-devel] [PATCH] lavc/libopenh264enc: update to openh264 1.6

Gregory J Wolfe gregory.wolfe at kodakalaris.com
Mon May 23 15:24:02 CEST 2016

> -----Original Message-----
> From: ffmpeg-devel [mailto:ffmpeg-devel-bounces at ffmpeg.org] On Behalf
> Of Hendrik Leppkes
> Sent: Saturday, May 21, 2016 3:25 AM
> To: FFmpeg development discussions and patches <ffmpeg-
> devel at ffmpeg.org>
> Subject: Re: [FFmpeg-devel] [PATCH] lavc/libopenh264enc: update to
> openh264 1.6
> On Mon, Mar 7, 2016 at 6:05 PM, Stefano Sabatini <stefasab at gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > In particular, the slice mode API was changed in commit:
> >
> > commit 33c378f7b791310e4cb64b53e2bb8f3f3bded105
> > Author: sijchen <sijchen at cisco.com>
> > Date:   Tue Nov 10 09:50:06 2015 -0800
> >
> >     change API for slicing part for easier usage (the UseLoadBalancing flag is
> still under working)
> >
> > This fixes compilation with latest version of openh264.
> > ---
> From the author of this wrapper:
> [20:23:22] <wbs> just fwiw, the openh264 patch that somebody just
> sent, for fixing compilation with 1.6 (which is not released) is just
> awful. it changes defaults for lots of options, it changes names for
> options, etc, all in one single patch (which breaks compilation with
> any earlier version)
> [20:23:47] <wbs> if one wants to add support for 1.6, it shouldn't
> break support for earlier versions. and 1.6 isn't released, so the
> actual api for that version may still change
> [20:24:06] <wbs> so I would just tell people to stick it and not try
> to "support" an unreleased version which is still open for changes
> I agree with this assessment, dropping support for any and all
> released versions of the library in favor of a unreleased
> in-development version seems bad.
> Can't we support both, and address his comments about changing the
> options etc?
> - Hendrik

FWIW, we at Kodak Alaris are actively using openh264 1.6 (OK so it's
not officially released) with FFmpeg.  I have manually applied the 1.6
related patches, AND I have an FFmpeg change (soon to be submitted)
to support other new capabilities in 1.6.  What I would like to see is
openh264 1.6 become an official release (soon!), with interface changes
conditionally compiled so as not to break builds using older versions.
Also, perhaps the  pre-1.6 options could be transparently mapped into
the new 1.6 options so that there would be a smooth transition.

If it would help move this along, I will tentatively volunteer to the do
some or all of the work.

Greg W., Kodak Alaris

More information about the ffmpeg-devel mailing list