On Sun, Sep 6, 2015 at 2:03 PM, James Almer <jamr...@gmail.com> wrote: > On 9/6/2015 5:23 PM, Ganesh Ajjanagadde wrote: >> On Sun, Sep 6, 2015 at 1:07 PM, Nicolas George <geo...@nsup.org> wrote: >>> Le decadi 20 fructidor, an CCXXIII, James Almer a écrit : >>>> Is it confirmed that we are not ABI compatible at all with libav? >>> >>> It is confirmed that we are not 100% compatible. Nothing more accurate than >>> that. >>> >>> But that does not matter, it could be fixed. What matters is what we want. >>> Apparently, people do not want to be compatible anymore. >> >> Correct me if I am wrong, but the people you are referring to are >> ffmpeg devs and do not represent libav. This is relevant to both >> projects, so I think their opinions should be considered as well. > > I don't see why. Compatibility was always something only we cared about. > It was never something that affected them positively or negatively.
Maybe so right now; but this could have implications on possible merging in the future. There could be claims like "ABI's are now too different, so we do not want to merge", etc. These aspects should be considered IMHO. FWIW, I have sent an email to libav-devel regarding this business in order to check if Clement's position on this is accurate. > > In fact, most of the "incompatible-libav-abi" changes were done because > libav didn't take compatibility with ffmpeg into consideration when > reimplementing existing functionality. > _______________________________________________ > ffmpeg-devel mailing list > ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org > http://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-devel _______________________________________________ ffmpeg-devel mailing list ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org http://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-devel
