[ogg-dev] Ogg bitwise.c bit tracking

[Ivo Emanuel Gonçalves]

[08:41] <xiphmont_> If there was a clear problem with incompatable
non-Ogg implementations we could reasonably help resolve... But I
think the cows are already crushed under the barn doors, or however
that saying goes.
[08:41] <xiphmont_> Eg, I think it is a slightly higher priority to
make is more clear how to use the codec libs without libogg.
[08:42] <xiphmont_> That is, the bitpacker is built into libogg
although it really doesn't need to be.
[08:42] <xiphmont_> Still it is, and that gives the impression our
codecs require Ogg.
[08:42] <_Ivo> how do you suggest this to be done?
[08:42] <xiphmont_> when really what they require is a bitpacker
according to the spec.
[08:43] <xiphmont_> JM and I discussed it on the Quebec trip
[08:43] <xiphmont_> I think to make it clear we split libogg into
libogg and libbitpack or something
[08:43] <xiphmont_> and also rejigger the spec to seperate out the
bitpacker specification into another document.
[08:43] <xiphmont_> No *actual* changes to code flow.
[08:44] <xiphmont_> Just how the namespace and information is presented.
[08:44] <xiphmont_> At that point, -logg wouldn't be needed to build
eg Vorbis and Theora
[08:45] <xiphmont_> In short, an exercise in clearing up a misperception.
[08:45] <_Ivo> so, in theory, it's something feasable and that can be
done quickly?
[08:46] <xiphmont_> Anyway, I'm just bringing that up as something
that is being handled.
[08:46] <xiphmont_> it is on the development queue, not particularly
high priority.  But in itself, a simple thing, yes.

>From [1].  Read libbitpack as libvorbis and we have a happy ending.

[1] http://xiph.org/minutes/2007/xiphmeet_20070711.txt