James Almer (12020-11-11): > What i know we were discussing was to merge lavd into lavf, since their > current dependency state is pretty hacky and makes development and extension > of certain lavf public structs a pain. > It's why i didn't apply my iterate api set just yet. > > I don't recall anything about splitting IO, but what does it achieve beyond > making lavf lighter? Are there users out there that could care about linking > to an hypothetical lavio while not caring about other lavf functionality?
Well, I think by now everybody knows what I think of the splitting of the libraries (we should move towards a single libffmpeg.so, anything else makes our work more complicated for no practical benefit that could be achieved another simpler way). But I would like to add: This is a tricky technical discussion. Arguing it properly requires time to state things clearly and to gather arguments. A developer meeting in real-time chat is absolutely not the place for it. It can be the place to finish the discussion if necessary, but not the place to lead the bulk of it. In fact, nothing should be on a developers meeting agenda that has not already been extensively discussed on the list. 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".
