On Thu, Sep 15, 2016 at 11:19 PM, Moritz Barsnick <barsn...@gmx.net> wrote: > On Thu, Sep 15, 2016 at 14:36:32 -0300, James Almer wrote: >> * SDL1 is old and effectively unmaintained. > > I understand this verbatim, but what is it supposed to mean? Has SDL1 > gotten rotten? Or more precisely: > > - Has technology evolved, and the library not kept up? > - Is a long list of bugs (somehow effecting ffmpeg) piling up and never > being fixed? > - Something else? > > If so, please argument as such, that makes it easier to get the point. > Being old an unmaintained, it *might* just as well work fine. >
A summary of advantages was posted quite a while ago, and re-linked in the thread that started this topic a few days ago: https://ffmpeg.org/pipermail/ffmpeg-devel/2016-January/186299.html Primarly, it adds more features that allow using more flexible output paths, and improves performance. There really is no question that we want SDL2 going forward, the only question this vote is supposed to answer is what to do with SDL1. - Hendrik _______________________________________________ ffmpeg-devel mailing list ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org http://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-devel
