Is TagLib alive?

[Fred Gleason]

On Jan 17, 2020, at 15:17, Scott Wheeler <scott at taglib.org> wrote:

>  The problem with a lot of obscure formats is that they end up being dropped on TagLib, often with code in a questionable state, and then the maintainer ends up having to try to fix bugs for formats they've never even heard of and are not widely used (and more importantly, don't know the spec for at all -- meaning trivial bugfixes can mean a lot of reading in advance).

Been there, done [am doing] that. I understand completely.


> That said, removing said formats would come with finally fixing the file type resolver API so that third parties can easily add support for formats they're interested in.  Moving those formats out of TagLib would allow their maintenance status to vary independently of TagLib’s.

So essentially, we’d have a TagLib ‘core’, with a set of ‘plug-ins’ that implement various schemas, some of which would be included as part of TagLib’s standard distribution while others could be supplied by third parties? That sounds nearly ideal.


> Yes on API requirements, and honestly, no on a PR for those formats.

Thank you for your honesty, and especially for all of the many years that you have invested in TagLib.

Cheers!


|---------------------------------------------------------------------|
| Frederick F. Gleason, Jr. |             Chief Developer             |
|                           |             Paravel Systems             |
|---------------------------------------------------------------------|
|         A room without books is like a body without a soul.         |
|                                                                     |
|                                                         -- Cicero   |
|---------------------------------------------------------------------|
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.kde.org/pipermail/taglib-devel/attachments/20200118/4df40986/attachment.html>