Quoting zhilizhao(赵志立) (2022-04-11 05:15:59) > > > > On Apr 11, 2022, at 5:31 AM, Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski > > <domi...@greysector.net> wrote: > > > > Dear Developers! > > I'm curious about the warning about configuration mismatch between ff* > > binaries and the libraries introduced in: > > > > https://git.ffmpeg.org/gitweb/ffmpeg.git/commit/9120e2cd3fadfa60269e94f97fc8107974c586fc > > > > At Fedora, we're interested in having two builds: one built with limited > > set of codecs[1] that is legally distributable in the US (since Red Hat, > > Fedora sponsor is a US-based company) and another, with a more complete > > set of codecs[2] distributed by RPM Fusion. The builds are intended to > > be drop-in replacements. We'd like to be able to distribute just one set > > of ff* binaries and only have two different interchangeable builds of > > libraries. > > > > The idea is to have the builds differ by enabled codecs only and have > > the rest of the configuration the same (even if it's not the case > > today). > > > > So, does that warning still make sense today? Will something break > > if we swap the libraries but keep the binary on user systems? > > That’s exactly an example of why the warning is useful. Otherwise user can > be confused why some codecs are missing while banner says they are enabled > by configure. So yes, the warning still make sense.
I would prefer to not show all that noise in the banner, which would also resolve the confusion. Build information should be reduced to loglevel verbose IMO. I would also be in favor of removing the mismatch warning. Different builds are supposed to be ABI-compatible, so mismatching configuration is not a cause for a warning. -- Anton Khirnov _______________________________________________ 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".
