--- Brady Patterson <brady@spaceship.com> wrote:> > Brady, I would say for now, your proposal is fine. I am going > > to move flac to getopt soon... > > > > Matt, that would be cool if you wanted to take on the audiofile > > support. I have actually been waiting to ask you for that, > > waiting until I got the getopt support done, and the new > > higher-level encoder layers in libFLAC that will pull in some > > of the madness from flac in a structured way. the flac code > > should be in much better shape then for the audiofile rework. > > Given all that, there's not much point in me doing this now. Josh, > have you > started with the getopt work? If not, I can do that, presumably > allowing you > to switch to the higher-level libFLAC interface quicker. Once all > that's done, > I'd be willing to do the audiofile work myself or jointly with Matt.I'm doing getopt now as part of the flac overhaul. I'd say that if you do the stopgap aiff write support now it can go in the next release, where as the audiofile support will probably take longer. the former I can merge in relatively easy but the latter would be better off starting after the overhaul is done. CVS will likely be broken for the next couple of days as I get the new encoder layers in. I don't like to check in stuff that doesn't compile but logistically right now it's much easier for me to do it in pieces. Josh __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! Health - Feel better, live better http://health.yahoo.com
This is in response to David's suggestion about FLAC support in libaudiofile. The dependency is only circular from a certain viewpoint, since the flac command-line utility is distinct from the library. However, if flac support is built into libaudiofile, the flac command-line utility becomes fairly pointless, I think. A better thing then would be an audiofile command-line utility (which may already exist). Of course, that would be fairly similar to sox, but that's irrelevant here unless/until sox supports flac. On a separate note, looking at the audiofile homepage, it is unclear to me how well it will work on MS platforms (not that they matter to me personally). -- Brady Patterson (brady@spaceship.com) How come I can't hurt this damn turtle?
On Wed, 2002-08-07 at 10:13, Brady Patterson wrote:> > This is in response to David's suggestion about FLAC support in libaudiofile. > > The dependency is only circular from a certain viewpoint, since the flac > command-line utility is distinct from the library. >true> However, if flac support is built into libaudiofile, the flac command-line > utility becomes fairly pointless, I think. A better thing then would be an > audiofile command-line utility (which may already exist).as a player/decoder yes... but as a fully configurable encoder, flac(exe) is probably still handy> > Of course, that would be fairly similar to sox, but that's irrelevant here > unless/until sox supports flac. > > On a separate note, looking at the audiofile homepage, it is unclear to me how > well it will work on MS platforms (not that they matter to me personally).I was wondering this myself after playing with audiofile last week. There is no mention of win32 support on the webpage or anywhere in the distribution tarball. There is however a "win32" directory in the cvs tree. Dont know how up-to-date it is tho. Although not as widely known, I think that libsndfile (http://www.zip.com.au/~erikd/libsndfile/) is probably an even better library for the same purpose, and more actively maintained, FLAC support is even in the format wishlist on that page. Dave