taglib-extras 0.1.7 vs. taglib 1.6

[Jeff Mitchell]

Michael Schwendt wrote:
>>> 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.

No, not at all.

>>> 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.

You're mixing issues together.

>>> 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.

It will for ASF and MP4.

(WAV is in a different namespace, so technically it's not even a problem.)

--Jeff

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 196 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://mail.kde.org/pipermail/amarok/attachments/20090916/d681c35a/attachment.sig>