Gstreamer 0.10 vs. Gstreamer 1.0, gst-ffmpeg vs. gst-libav, ffmpeg vs. libav confusion
Hi everyone
Im going to start building some multimedia capabilities to my buildroot system soon and
hit to this confusion about gstreamer 0.10 vs. gstreamer 1.0, gst-ffmeg vs. gst-libav,
and ffmpeg vs libav.
What I have read from
http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/view/svn/multimedia/gstreamer.html
and all over the Net I have come to following conclusion:
1 )
gstreamer 0.10 and gstreamer 1.0 (and their plugins) are totally incompatible versions but if need to be
they can be installed both into same system.
2 )
gstreamer 0,10 has the following plugins:
gst-plugins-bad 0.10.x
gst-plugins-good 0.10.x
gst-plugins-ugly 0.10.x
and
gst-plugins-ffmpeg 0.10.x which uses ffmpeg library
3 )
gstreamer 1,0 has the following plugins:
gst-plugins-bad 1.0.x
gst-plugins-good 1.0.x
gst-plugins-ugly 1.0.x
and
gst-plugins-libav 1.0.x which uses libav library (either external or internal, tarball provided)
4 ) libav is a fork of ffmpeg
5 ) ffmpeg is not dead but kicking and all well and alive.
In the latest git of buildroot there is gstreamer 0.10.x series and all it's 0.10.x series plugins which is all good and well
and I think it should be keeped in that way.
But what about 1.0 ?
Maybe gstreamer 1.0.x package for buildroot should be called gstreamer-1.0 or something similar
and also in it's Config.in file BR2_PACKAGE_GSTREAMER1.0 ??? And it's own plugins named similary with just -1.0 suffix ? With the exception of gst-libav, which is renamed gst-ffmpeg for gstreamer 1.0
And is it worth adding libav as an separate package to buildroot at all or just use the internal version provided by gst-libav plugin when compiling ?
Best Regards
Stefan
P.S.
Hate it when people have to make things difficult to end users just because large egos:
http://blog.pkh.me/p/13-the-ffmpeg-libav-situation.html
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.busybox.net/pipermail/buildroot/attachments/20130119/b8877d57/attachment-0001.html>
Quoted 8 lines · Stefan Fr?berg
Hi everyone
Im going to start building some multimedia capabilities to my buildroot system soon and
hit to this confusion about gstreamer 0.10 vs. gstreamer 1.0, gst-ffmeg vs. gst-libav,
and ffmpeg vs libav.
Quoted 8 lines
What I have read from
http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/view/svn/multimedia/gstreamer.html
and all over the Net I have come to following conclusion:1 )
gstreamer 0.10 and gstreamer 1.0 (and their plugins) are totally incompatible versions but if need to be
they can be installed both into same system.
Totally incompatible is an exaggeration. It's more like python2 vs.
python3: sufficiently incompatible to warrant separate packaging.
Quoted 27 lines
2 )
gstreamer 0,10 has the following plugins:
gst-plugins-bad 0.10.x
gst-plugins-good 0.10.x
gst-plugins-ugly 0.10.x
and
gst-plugins-ffmpeg 0.10.x which uses ffmpeg library3 )
gstreamer 1,0 has the following plugins:
gst-plugins-bad 1.0.x
gst-plugins-good 1.0.x
gst-plugins-ugly 1.0.x
and
gst-plugins-libav 1.0.x which uses libav library (either external or internal, tarball provided)4 ) libav is a fork of ffmpeg
5 ) ffmpeg is not dead but kicking and all well and alive.
In the latest git of buildroot there is gstreamer 0.10.x series and all it's 0.10.x series plugins which is all good and well
and I think it should be keeped in that way.
Quoted 7 lines
But what about 1.0 ?
Maybe gstreamer 1.0.x package for buildroot should be called gstreamer-1.0 or something similar
and also in it's Config.in file BR2_PACKAGE_GSTREAMER1.0 ??? And it's own plugins named similary with just -1.0 suffix ? With the exception of gst-libav, which is renamed gst-ffmpeg for gstreamer 1.0
Yes, for GStreamer 1.0 there should be separate packages. For one
thing, the new plugin libraries don't have the same set of plugins.
They should be called something like BR2_PACKAGE_GSTREAMER_10 (no dots
allowed in config symbols). Which is of course mightily confusing, since the old thing is called gstreamer-0.10...
Note that Bogdan Radulescu posted a patch series to bump the GStreamer
packages to 1.0. I thought he was going to resubmit with new packages instead of bumps, but that hasn't appeared on the list yet.
Quoted 5 lines
And is it worth adding libav as an separate package to buildroot at all or just use the internal version provided by gst-libav plugin when compiling ?
If it's just gst-libav, I don't think it's worth introducing libav as a package. But if some other package starts to use libav instead of ffmpeg, it will be necessary.
Regards,
Arnout
Quoted 26 lines
Best Regards
Stefan
P.S.
Hate it when people have to make things difficult to end users just because large egos:
http://blog.pkh.me/p/13-the-ffmpeg-libav-situation.html_______________________________________________
buildroot mailing list
buildroot at busybox.net
http://lists.busybox.net/mailman/listinfo/buildroot
Signature · 6 lines
Arnout Vandecappelle arnout at mind be Senior Embedded Software Architect +32-16-286500 Essensium/Mind http://www.mind.be G.Geenslaan 9, 3001 Leuven, Belgium BE 872 984 063 RPR Leuven LinkedIn profile: http://www.linkedin.com/in/arnoutvandecappelle GPG fingerprint: 7CB5 E4CC 6C2E EFD4 6E3D A754 F963 ECAB 2450 2F1F
Quoted 1 line
Quoted 1 line
Quoted 1 line
Quoted 1 line
Quoted 1 line
"Arnout" == Arnout Vandecappelle <[email protected]> writes:
Hi,
Arnout> Yes, for GStreamer 1.0 there should be separate packages. For one Arnout> thing, the new plugin libraries don't have the same set of plugins.
Arnout> They should be called something like BR2_PACKAGE_GSTREAMER_10 (no Arnout> dots allowed in config symbols). Which is of course mightily Arnout> confusing, since the old thing is called gstreamer-0.10...
Arnout> Note that Bogdan Radulescu posted a patch series to bump the Arnout> GStreamer packages to 1.0. I thought he was going to resubmit with new Arnout> packages instead of bumps, but that hasn't appeared on the list yet.
Me too..
Quoted 3 lines
Quoted 3 lines
And is it worth adding libav as an separate package to buildroot at all or just use the internal version provided by gst-libav plugin when compiling ?
Arnout> If it's just gst-libav, I don't think it's worth introducing libav as Arnout> a package. But if some other package starts to use libav instead of Arnout> ffmpeg, it will be necessary.
Agreed.
Signature · 1 line
Bye, Peter Korsgaard
19.1.2013 21:24, Arnout Vandecappelle kirjoitti:
Quoted 1 line · Stefan Fr?berg
[snip]
Quoted 11 lines
Quoted 7 lines
But what about 1.0 ?
Maybe gstreamer 1.0.x package for buildroot should be called gstreamer-1.0 or something similar
and also in it's Config.in file BR2_PACKAGE_GSTREAMER1.0 ??? And it's own plugins named similary with just -1.0 suffix ? With the exception of gst-libav, which is renamed gst-ffmpeg for gstreamer 1.0Yes, for GStreamer 1.0 there should be separate packages. For one
thing, the new plugin libraries don't have the same set of plugins.
Quoted 8 lines
They should be called something like
BR2_PACKAGE_GSTREAMER_10(no
dots allowed in config symbols). Which is of course mightily confusing, since the old thing is called gstreamer-0.10...Note that Bogdan Radulescu posted a patch series to bump the
GStreamer packages to 1.0. I thought he was going to resubmit with new packages instead of bumps, but that hasn't appeared on the list yet.
Oh. That's good.
Quoted 11 lines
Quoted 5 lines
And is it worth adding libav as an separate package to buildroot at all or just use the internal version provided by gst-libav plugin when compiling ?
If it's just gst-libav, I don't think it's worth introducing libav as a package. But if some other package starts to use libav instead of ffmpeg, it will be necessary.
Yes. AFAIK, for now, it's just this gst-libav that needs it. I did a quick compile test of that gst-libav, using internal libav, and it compiled nicely.
And what I have read more and more about those differences of ffmpeg vs. libav, it now seems that
current, newest version of ffmpeg is now much more secure and feature rich than it was at the time of fork.
They just kicked out new major release, ffmpeg 1.1.
Stefan