Quantcast

speex vs speex-devel

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
7 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

speex vs speex-devel

Jan Stary
The speec port has no maintainer so I am asking here.
Why do we have both 'speex' and 'speex-devel'?
They consist of exactly the same files.

Similarly for speexDSP and speexDSP-devel.

Xiph.org itself has deprecated Speex in 2013.

        Jan

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: speex vs speex-devel

Michael Dickens-4
Guessing it's legacy cruft. Seems like for deprecated projects, there
should be just a "final release" port with patches added here and there
for compatibility; "devel" is really in my opinion for actively
in-development projects. That's what I do with qt4-mac, which amazingly
still mostly builds on most MacOS X / macOS systems. My $0.02 worth ...
- MLD

On Fri, Mar 31, 2017, at 08:05 AM, Jan Stary wrote:
> The speec port has no maintainer so I am asking here.
> Why do we have both 'speex' and 'speex-devel'?
> They consist of exactly the same files.
>
> Similarly for speexDSP and speexDSP-devel.
>
> Xiph.org itself has deprecated Speex in 2013.
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: speex vs speex-devel

Ken Cunningham Webuse
re: qt4-mac

I have 4.7.4_1+quartz running quite nicely thank you on TIger (haven't found anything that won't compile against it yet), and the current version running on 10.5 on up.

So you could say it builds on EVERY MacOS X / macOS system!

K


On 2017-03-31, at 7:00 AM, Michael Dickens wrote:

> Guessing it's legacy cruft. Seems like for deprecated projects, there
> should be just a "final release" port with patches added here and there
> for compatibility; "devel" is really in my opinion for actively
> in-development projects. That's what I do with qt4-mac, which amazingly
> still mostly builds on most MacOS X / macOS systems. My $0.02 worth ...
> - MLD
>
> On Fri, Mar 31, 2017, at 08:05 AM, Jan Stary wrote:
>> The speec port has no maintainer so I am asking here.
>> Why do we have both 'speex' and 'speex-devel'?
>> They consist of exactly the same files.
>>
>> Similarly for speexDSP and speexDSP-devel.
>>
>> Xiph.org itself has deprecated Speex in 2013.

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: speex vs speex-devel

Jan Stary
In reply to this post by Michael Dickens-4
On Mar 31 14:05:03, [hidden email] wrote:
> The speex port has no maintainer so I am asking here.
> Why do we have both 'speex' and 'speex-devel'?
> They consist of exactly the same files.
> Similarly for speexDSP and speexDSP-devel.
> Xiph.org itself has deprecated Speex in 2013.

On Mar 31 10:00:23, [hidden email] wrote:
> Guessing it's legacy cruft. Seems like for deprecated projects, there
> should be just a "final release" port with patches added here and there
> for compatibility

Can we clean this up? I suggest to

1. delete speex-devel as it is the same as speex
2. delete speexDSP-devel as it is the same as speexDSP
3. keep speex for those still using it
4. keep speexDSP, whch is not the obsolete codec,
   but (AFAIU) an implementation of jitter corrrection etc.

        Jan

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: speex vs speex-devel

Ryan Schmidt-24

On Mar 31, 2017, at 16:21, Jan Stary wrote:

> On Mar 31 14:05:03, [hidden email] wrote:
>> The speex port has no maintainer so I am asking here.
>> Why do we have both 'speex' and 'speex-devel'?
>> They consist of exactly the same files.
>> Similarly for speexDSP and speexDSP-devel.
>> Xiph.org itself has deprecated Speex in 2013.
>
> On Mar 31 10:00:23, [hidden email] wrote:
>> Guessing it's legacy cruft. Seems like for deprecated projects, there
>> should be just a "final release" port with patches added here and there
>> for compatibility
>
> Can we clean this up? I suggest to
>
> 1. delete speex-devel as it is the same as speex
> 2. delete speexDSP-devel as it is the same as speexDSP
> 3. keep speex for those still using it
> 4. keep speexDSP, whch is not the obsolete codec,
>   but (AFAIU) an implementation of jitter corrrection etc.

Since it looks like speex has been superseded by opus, I guess there won't be any further major development on speex, so I agree having -devel ports isn't useful anymore.

Before actually removing them, the -devel ports should be replaced_by the non-devel ports for a time, to give users of the -devel ports a chance to upgrade to the non-devel ports.

https://trac.macports.org/wiki/PortfileRecipes#replaced-by


Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: speex vs speex-devel

Mihai Moldovan-2
On 04/01/2017 06:13 AM, Ryan Schmidt wrote:
> Since it looks like speex has been superseded by opus, I guess there won't be any further major development on speex, so I agree having -devel ports isn't useful anymore.

Well, probably not, but speex is/was notorious for releasing rcs and betas for a
very long time before the actual stable release. That was probably the reason
for having a -devel variant.

With newer speex versions, speex and speexDSP were split. Ironically, speexDSP
was never released as a stable version (or at least not yet, see my comment
above...), so when I updated the port(s) the only way to go was to put them both
to the same version, including stable speex and pre-release speexDSP. Otherwise,
we wouldn't have speexDSP, which programs do tend to use in addition to plain speex.

My idea was to keep them synched and once a stable version of any is released,
switch to that + whenever a new rc/beta/whatever is released after that bump the
-devel ports only.

I have no idea how likely that is anymore.


All that said: even while speex might be deprecated in favor of OPUS (and so is
SILK), it doesn't mean that development and usage is completely dead. Having no
speex implementation available would be a bad idea.


> Before actually removing them, the -devel ports should be replaced_by the non-devel ports for a time, to give users of the -devel ports a chance to upgrade to the non-devel ports.

Go ahead if you want to.



Mihai



signature.asc (945 bytes) Download Attachment
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: speex vs speex-devel

Jan Stary
On Apr 13 08:59:56, [hidden email] wrote:
> On 04/01/2017 06:13 AM, Ryan Schmidt wrote:
> > Since it looks like speex has been superseded by opus, I guess there won't be any further major development on speex, so I agree having -devel ports isn't useful anymore.
>
> Well, probably not, but speex is/was notorious for releasing rcs and betas for a
> very long time before the actual stable release. That was probably the reason
> for having a -devel variant.

My point is that the speex-devel port is exactly the same as the speex port.
They are two names for the same thing. Same for speexdsp and speexdsp-devel.
There is no point having the same thing as two different ports.

> With newer speex versions, speex and speexDSP were split. Ironically, speexDSP
> was never released as a stable version (or at least not yet, see my comment
> above...),

Yes, it seems SpeexDSP 1.2rc3 from January, 2015 is the latest.

> so when I updated the port(s) the only way to go was to put them both
> to the same version, including stable speex and pre-release speexDSP.
> Otherwise, we wouldn't have speexDSP, which programs do tend
> to use in addition to plain speex.

I agree that we want to keep both speex and speexdsp.
It's just the -devel versions that should be removed,
being just another copy.

> My idea was to keep them synched and once a stable version
> of any is released, switch to that + whenever a new rc/beta/whatever
> is released after that bump the -devel ports only.
> I have no idea how likely that is anymore.

OK, I see. That sounds like a reason to have both speex and speex-devel.
But I don;t thin there is any point in that now ...

> All that said: even while speex might be deprecated in favor of OPUS
> (and so is SILK), it doesn't mean that development and usage
> is completely dead. Having no speex implementation available
> would be a bad idea.

Of course. People still use it, we need to keep it.

> > Before actually removing them, the -devel ports should be replaced_by the non-devel ports for a time, to give users of the -devel ports a chance to upgrade to the non-devel ports.
>
> Go ahead if you want to.

https://trac.macports.org/ticket/53908

        Jan

Loading...