On Sun, Sep 6, 2015 at 2:12 PM, Ganesh Ajjanagadde <gajja...@mit.edu> wrote: > 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.
Got a reply on libav-devel; Clement's position on this is indeed 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
