Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 33

Thread: Is MPlayer2 A Viable Fork Of MPlayer?

  1. #11
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Posts
    75

    Default

    Agreed. Excellent work. using AUR package with SMPlayer svn.

  2. #12
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    7

    Default

    All of these things are welcome changes, especially dynamically loading ffmpeg and removing gmplayer.

  3. #13
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    845

    Default

    I seem to recall that the same guys who were the main driving force in the ffmpeg 'fork' also took over certain administrative parts of the mplayer project earlier. I can't help but wonder if mplayer2 is a fork by them or caused by them or non-related. I'll try digging up the blog posts were I read about this and see if I can get some sort of overview of what (if anything) is going on.

  4. #14
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Columbus, OH, USA
    Posts
    323

    Default

    Wait, you can still build mplayer with gui support? And people USE it? What.

  5. #15
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    1,286

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by cl333r View Post
    offtopic
    "libass" is a pretty funny name btw
    liboobs is good too

  6. #16
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Posts
    257

    Default

    Well, I don't like this fork very much because of these facts:

    1) I've to use a statically linked ffmpeg (if using mplayer2-git), whereas I prefer to compile ffmpeg with my own options and dynamically link mplayer against shared ffmpeg.

    2) Doesn't support vaapi, so it's useless for my Desktop with a HD4650AGP card. (I don't want to decode a 720p H264 video in a P4@3.4GHz using 100% of the CPU)

    But other than that, I think the project can succeed.

    Cheers

  7. #17
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    365

    Default

    You can link against your system ffmpeg just fine. The mplayer2-build repository is just meant to provide a self-contained mplayer that doesn't have any special dependencies. You don't have to use it.

  8. #18
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Posts
    257

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by brent View Post
    You can link against your system ffmpeg just fine. The mplayer2-build repository is just meant to provide a self-contained mplayer that doesn't have any special dependencies. You don't have to use it.
    Oh, I see!

    How about compatibility with vaapi patches? Has anyone tried so far?

    Cheers

  9. #19
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Posts
    2

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by timofonic View Post
    First FFMpeg got forked, then MPlayer too.
    Not really, this project is going for a long time already (I acompany this project for almost a year, it was called mplayer-git or mplayer-uau before). But the originai idea was to create patches that would be merged to upstream MPlayer. Almost no patch was merged and the changes are getting bigger and bigger, so time to fork.

    Quote Originally Posted by XorEaxEax View Post
    I seem to recall that the same guys who were the main driving force in the ffmpeg 'fork' also took over certain administrative parts of the mplayer project earlier. I can't help but wonder if mplayer2 is a fork by them or caused by them or non-related. I'll try digging up the blog posts were I read about this and see if I can get some sort of overview of what (if anything) is going on.
    No, uau and verm (two of the main developers of this fork) are not involved with the recent libav issue.


    Quote Originally Posted by Wyatt View Post
    Wait, you can still build mplayer with gui support? And people USE it? What.
    Yeah, using ./configure --enable-gui. I remember uau saying that one of the developers of mplayer bitching about removing this piece of crappy, so you can say this is one of the motives of this fork.


    Quote Originally Posted by evolution View Post
    Oh, I see!

    How about compatibility with vaapi patches? Has anyone tried so far?

    Cheers
    The best thing you can do is try. I remember to compile mplayer-git with CoreAVC patches and it worked just fine. But the changes on the future version 2.1 will be more agressive, so I believe from this version towards there will be no patch compatibility from mplayer.

    You can always send a feature request on their bug tracker too (http://devel.mplayer2.org/wiki/Bugs).

  10. #20
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Posts
    10

    Default

    And now mplayer and mplayer2 both are forked. From the mpv-player site:

    https://github.com/mpv-player/mpv/bl...en/changes.rst
    Why this Fork?

    MPlayer wants to maintain old code, even if it is very bad code. It seems mplayer2 was forked because MPlayer developers refused to get rid of all the cruft. The mplayer2 and MPlayer codebases also deviated enough to make a reunification unlikely.
    mplayer2 development is slow, and it is hard to get in changes. Details withheld as to not turn this into a rant.
    MPlayer rarely merged from mplayer2, and mplayer2 practically stopped merging from MPlayer (not even code cleanups or new features are merged)
    mpv intends to continuously merge from mplayer-svn and mplayer2, while speeding up development. There is willingness for significant changes, even if this means breaking compatibility.

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •