Michael Niedermayer (12020-10-11):
> The situation with a single API+ABI shared by 2 libs with their own soname
> is bad.
> lavd either needs an independant API thats designed for devices (which is
> probably more a medium to long term effort)

This would be a terrible idea. Being functionally a part of lavf, with
the same API is an essential feature of lavd: it is what allows users to
use devices with applications that are designed for files. Otherwise,
lavd would only be usable with applications meant for it, i.e. none.

> OR
> lavd should be merged with lavf (as suggested)
> so i agree such a merge seems like the best choice

Regards,

-- 
  Nicolas George

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

_______________________________________________
ffmpeg-devel mailing list
ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org
https://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-devel

To unsubscribe, visit link above, or email
ffmpeg-devel-requ...@ffmpeg.org with subject "unsubscribe".

Reply via email to