On 6/17/2021 9:55 AM, Nicolas George wrote:
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.
Start by dropping the condescending and disregardful attitude every
single one of your replies exudes.
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.
Case in point.
_______________________________________________
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".
