Splitting out the taglib plugins?

[Paul Cifarelli]

ok by me, but I really should add write support for rmff, people would expect 
that if it's a general purpose plugin (of course its useful for amarok too, I 
just never got to it...)

Paul (foreboy)

On Saturday 24 June 2006 2:04 pm, Diego 'Flameeyes' Pettenò wrote:
> Hi everybody. For the ones of you that I don't annoy from time to time on
> IRC, I'm the Gentoo packager for Amarok.
>
> I was wondering how everybody felt about releasing the TagLib plugins on
> their own. Let's me explain. I'm working on TagLib bindings for Ruby
> (RubyTag++[1]), and although I'm mostly waiting now for upstream TagLib to
> fix a few bugs that I end up discovering on my testsuite, I'd like to able
> to handle also AAC/M4A files and WMA, mainly because of the second stage of
> my project ;)
>
> Basically after RubyTag++ works decently, I'm going to return to the work
> on JulTagger, a Korundum(Ruby)-based audio file tagger for KDE.
>
> The problem is that as long as the plugins are internal to Amarok code,
> it's not possible to use them in other software. The first solution would
> be to take the code as it is, and package it in its own tarball, as eean
> already suggested. This would work for the Amarok part, but would be a bit
> un-optimal for other situations. The code would be duplicated once
> compiled, it will still enlarge compile time for Amarok, and it will be
> difficult to get them correctly in sync.
>
> What I tried to propose (but of course I don't count on), is to have those
> TagLib plugins in their own repository, with a clean build system (not
> KDE-based to avoid depending on it and turning away extra projects
> interested in them, I would say simple plain autotools correctly used or
> cmake proper), so that they can be used by other projects to complement
> TagLib itself.
>
> If the extra dependency would be a problem for Amarok packaging (although
> as long as the packagers know how they should work this shouldn't be an
> issue), it would be possible to have an internal copy of the plugins
> enabled by default, and a hidden, commented switch to use the external copy
> of them, so that for instance source-based distribution (like Gentoo, but I
> would suppose also FreeBSD's ports, and similar) would be able to use the
> proper extra package.
>
> Thoughts, comments? (Please CC me as I'm not subscribed to the list)
>
> [1] http://flameeyes.is-a-geek.org/projects#rubytag++