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
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".
