James Almer (12021-06-17): > Countless avpriv_ symbols would not be gone with any kind of locking.
No, they would not be gone. But they would no longer be a compatibility and maintenance burden either. That is a huge benefit. > I already gave you the reason why I'm *against* it. I find it insulting that > you completely disregard it and then ask again if i have one, instead of if > i have another. > > Version locking all libraries adds a constrain that's not required, brings > no worthwhile benefits, This is no reason to be against it, this is just you showing that you did not think deep enough to realize the benefits. I am sorry if my way of pointing this to you rubs you the wrong way, but I hope you will some day realize that this attitude from you rubs me the wrong way. We both have to make efforts to communicate with the other. > and removes freedom for the end user. This, I accept as a reason, but a very weak one. Do we know how many users would want to make use of that freedom? > And I'll mention that your wish to do this certainly feels like a concealed > attempt to try to push decisions and changes closer towards your personal > end goal of merging all libraries. Please refrain in the future from accusing people of covert intents, it is rarely helpful. > I have nothing else to say. I support version locking lavf and lavd, and > completely oppose version locking every other library for the reasons i > already gave you. A very weak one, and a few technical misunderstandings. Regards, -- Nicolas George _______________________________________________ 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".
