James Almer (12021-06-16): > I'm not sure what you mean. I would not be against it, it's just that if we > were to merge lavf and lavd, this wouldn't even be something to consider.
Have you not read the discussion? The benefits go way beyond the tiny lavf-lavd issues. > > and why you are > > against for other libraries. > Can you be more specific? When I say "I am for X" and you reply "I am not against Y", with Y⊂X and Y≠X, you are implicitly saying that you are against X∖Y. I proposed to restrict to matching versions on all libraries, you replied you were not against restricting for lavf-lavd, stating implicitly that you are against it for the libraries. So, I ask explicitly: are you against restricting to matching versions for all the libraries? If so, then why? 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".
