[alsa-devel] [Alsa-devel] Quality resampling code for libasound
jean-marc.valin at usherbrooke.ca
Thu Mar 22 14:36:00 CET 2007
> This is different understanding between us.
> I'm working at a distro vendor, and as a responsible person for
> distribution packages, the first thought is maintainability.
So far we agree.
> For that purpase, I prefer very much a shared library approach because
> I know the hell of vice of copying codes. Copying code works well if
> it's 100% safe and mature code, which requires no longer updates and
> fixes. But a code being developed shouldn't be copied.
Not sure I agree here. Do you really want to depend on libspeex
"blindly" not knowing what changes I make (while the code is evolving).
Code copying is not necessarily bad. After all, that what the kernel
does with the ALSA drivers -- sync up every once and then.
> That is, the only criteria for inclusion is whether the code is well
> tested and no more fix/update is needed. In this case, whether
> resample code has to be further sync'ed with speex codebase or not.
> If it should be kept synced, then shlib approach is clearly better.
> Otherwise we have to take care of two places at the same time.
I guess my main question would be: are you willing to make libspeex a
*mandatory* dependency? If not, please include a copy of the resampler.
More information about the Alsa-devel