On Fri, Sep 29, 2017 at 8:25 PM, Ronald S. Bultje <rsbul...@gmail.com> wrote: > Hi, > > On Fri, Sep 29, 2017 at 2:12 PM, Hendrik Leppkes <h.lepp...@gmail.com> > wrote: > >> On Fri, Sep 29, 2017 at 7:08 PM, Clément Bœsch <u...@pkh.me> wrote: >> > On Fri, Sep 29, 2017 at 06:15:57PM +0200, Hendrik Leppkes wrote: >> >> On Fri, Sep 29, 2017 at 2:40 PM, Clément Bœsch <u...@pkh.me> wrote: >> >> > On Fri, Sep 29, 2017 at 11:38:42AM +0200, Hendrik Leppkes wrote: >> >> >> On Fri, Sep 29, 2017 at 11:11 AM, Clément Bœsch <u...@pkh.me> wrote: >> >> >> > From: Clément Bœsch <cboe...@gopro.com> >> >> >> > >> >> >> > Deprecated (aka removed) in OSX 10.11, and we have a replacement >> for it >> >> >> > (VideoToolbox). >> >> >> > --- >> >> >> > Changes since RFC: rebase, ifdefery depreciation dance for the pix >> fmt, >> >> >> > Changelog entry. >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> >> >> vda.h is an installed header with public API in it, removing it >> >> >> entirely would be an API and ABI break. >> >> >> >> >> > >> >> > vda.h may be exposed unconditionally, but its associated object vda.o >> >> > isn't. Since it depends on vda to be assembled, the vda stub itself >> >> > doesn't seem to be present ever. So we're basically exposing a header >> for >> >> > functions we can never link against. >> >> > >> >> > So should I somehow fix VDA while dropping it by providing a stub >> that was >> >> > never present? >> >> > >> >> >> >> vda is autodetected so a "naive" build would have it, so I would argue >> >> the ABI of such a "naive" build should probably remain constant? >> > >> > Just to be clear (sorry if I make you repeat yourself), we currently have >> > the following: >> > >> > - Systems without VDA (that is, almost all of them) do not have access to >> > either VDA or the stub: for them, we are exposing a header with FFmpeg >> > symbols not accessible. >> > >> > - Systems with VDA have access to the VDA code (assuming it still build) >> > >> > What you suggest: >> > >> > - Both systems (with and without VDA) should now use the existing stub we >> > currently never build so the ABI for systems with VDA will be kept. >> > >> > Is that correct? >> > >> > If so, this means we will start introducing a deprecated API stub for VDA >> > on all systems. >> > >> > Or should I start exposing the stub only for VDA systems, meaning I'll >> > need to keep the VDA detection in the configure? >> > >> >> Obivously including the stub everywhere is much easier and far saner, >> does it really harm to do that? > > > I don't think it's reasonable to ask people to fix a feature if all they > want to do is deprecate and remove it. >
Its not exactly any effort, however. - Hendrik _______________________________________________ ffmpeg-devel mailing list ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org http://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-devel
