taglib-extras 0.1.7 vs. taglib 1.6

[Michael Schwendt]

On Wed, 16 Sep 2009 14:13:03 -0400, Jeff wrote:

> Michael Schwendt wrote:
> > Jeff wrote:
> > 
> >>> I'm somewhat surprised that the fresh taglib-extras 0.1.7 release
> >>> continues to ship the file format support that has entered taglib 1.6.
> >> What you mean to say is that Taglib-Extras 0.1.7 released four days
> >> before TagLib 1.6.
> > 
> > Well, I could have written TagLib 1.6rc1, which is more than a week older
> > and was a publicly announced release, too. ;)
> 
> Yes, in which case the answer would have been "TagLib 1.6 has not
> shipped, and most/all distros are not going to carry the RC."

Splitting-hairs.
 
> > That doesn't help much. The file locations won't conflict, but
> > other than that, e.g. Amarok includes headers from both taglib
> > and taglib-extras with a modified search path for headers and
> > without an explicit taglib/ or taglib-extras/ prefix. First directory
> > in search path would win.
> 
> Which isn't a taglib or taglib-extras problem; it's an Amarok problem.

Only if you want to work around these issues in Amarok instead of fixing
it taglib-extras. libtag-extras even links with libtag directly.

(btw, when a did a repoquery here Amarok was the only taglib-extras
user, so where to fix it doesn't matter much)
 
> > I've asked about the optional MP4 and ASF support on taglib-devel.
> > You've replied to that thread as well, btw.
> > Not building with MP4/ASF support would mean, that none of the
> > many taglib API users could use the support and would need to
> > add taglib-extras usage instead. Would be kind of unfortunate,
> > don't you think?
> 
> I don't follow your question.

I'm sorry to hear that. Building taglib without ASF+MP4 support won't fix
the issues pointed out in my original mail that opened this thread.