On 11/5/2017 3:42 PM, Carl Eugen Hoyos wrote: > 2017-11-05 19:35 GMT+01:00 Mark Thompson <s...@jkqxz.net>: >> On 05/11/17 18:28, Carl Eugen Hoyos wrote: >>> 2017-11-05 15:24 GMT+01:00 Mark Thompson <s...@jkqxz.net>: >>>> On 30/10/17 19:51, Mark Thompson wrote: >>> >>>> "No external headers may be included in the ffmpeg tree." >>> >>> So you suggest to remove the Nvidia header? >> If that specific policy is adopted then it would have to be. > > Then I don't think this policy is useful. > > Iirc, there is a second external header, I have never used > either of those but judging from user response, both features > are heavily used making a removal a no-go.
Removal of the nvidia headers from the tree could be done by creating a separate repository specifically for them. The work done to get them in this form is not something that should be lost. > >> Alternative proposals are welcome. > > I don't really understand: > It was mentioned several times in the relevant thread - and > I completely agree - that the fact that one external header > is present is no argument to add another. (And iirc - and > again I agree - it was also argued that pushing on this > argument is not a good idea.) > If you believe adding the AMD header makes sense, it may > possibly be added, if you are against it, it will likely not be > added. > > Carl Eugen > _______________________________________________ > 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
