Just an FYI about MPlayer/FFmpeg

Randy McMurchy randy at linuxfromscratch.org
Fri Aug 10 13:52:18 PDT 2007


Craig Jackson wrote these words on 08/10/07 13:36 CST:

> I've always wondered if this affects the codecs at all.  As far as I
> can tell, the only benefit to a system-installed FFMpeg is having the
> ability to have thumbnail previews in Gnome, KDE, etc.

I've never build MPlayer with a system-installed FFmpeg before. It
is "recommended" by the MPlayer devs to use the internal static version
built into MPlayer. But the devs probably just say that because they
know the version of FFmpeg that ships in a MPlayer tarball works
properly.

I cannot notice any difference in using the MPlayer with system-installed
FFmpeg vs MPlayer with FFmpeg built in statically. More than anything, I
was trying to see if the FFmpeg CVS tarball I chose to use was compatible
with the rc1 version of MPlayer. It appears to be. I used a CVS checkout
of FFmpeg dated 20070606.

Someone with more knowledge about dynamic libraries vs static needs to
comment about which method would be better, or what benefits/drawbacks
one would see using system-installed FFmpeg in MPlayer. MPlayer does
use a whole bunch of system-installed codecs if it finds them during
the building, so I don't know what harm system-installed FFmpeg would
do.

>  If my goal is
> to simply provide a media player (Mplayer) with the correct set of
> codecs, then using the MPlayer internal FFMpeg should suffuce,
> correct?

Not sure exactly what you mean, but MPlayer using internal FFmpeg
has been the status-quo for a long time (for most folks). I've
never bothered before to try MPlayer using dynamic FFmpeg. I do
know that a current (after about June 20th of this year) checkout
of FFmpeg won't work as they ripped out some string handling
declarations that MPlayer looks for.

However, when MPlayer 1.0 is finally released, it's possible that
you could then use a current CVS checkout of FFmpeg. Only time will
tell. I do know that the FFmpeg API is constantly on the move, no
wonder they don't want to release any tarballs.

-- 
Randy

rmlscsi: [bogomips 1003.26] [GNU ld version 2.16.1] [gcc (GCC) 4.0.3]
[GNU C Library stable release version 2.3.6] [Linux 2.6.14.3 i686]
15:40:00 up 8 days, 15:31, 1 user, load average: 0.36, 0.10, 0.22



More information about the blfs-dev mailing list