TagLib 1.6 RC1

[Lukáš Lalinský]

On Fri, Sep 4, 2009 at 11:17 AM, Michael Schwendt<mschwendt at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, 03 Sep 2009 21:11:26 -0400, Jeff wrote:
>
>> Lukáš Lalinský wrote:
>> >> How much does the ASF/MP4 support differ from taglib-extras ?
>> >
>> > taglib-extras is mostly a copy of post-1.5 code from taglib trunk (ie,
>> > the ASF and MP4 classes are identical).
>>
>> Yes...those formats that are shared between the two are identical and
>> have regularly been synced (except for any tiny changes necessary for
>> compilation). Once distributions package 1.6, taglib-extras will have
>> another release that drops those formats.
>
> Do you encourage packagers to enable the _optional_ (!) ASF/WMA and MP4
> format support?

I don't encourage or discourage it. From technical point of view they
are fine. You might be concerned about patent issues, but I'm sure you
have worse code in your distribution (and most likely even the same
code, either with Amarok1 or taglib-extras). Nice situation is for
example:

http://marc.info/?l=taglib-devel&m=120767061907191&w=2

which says Fedora would rather not distribute the ASF code and yet there is:

https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/packages/name/taglib-extras (same code)
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/packages/name/libtunepimp (the
implementation in TagLib 1.6 is based on this code)
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/packages/name/python-mutagen
(ASF part is again based on the code from libtunepimp)
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/packages/name/bmpx (copy of WMA
code from libtunepimp)

I'm sure I can find more. So, do your own decision. :)

-- 
Lukas Lalinsky
lalinsky at gmail.com