PS: just wrote on the libav-api mailing-list http://lists.libav.org/pipermail/libav-api/2013-September/000741.html
Hi Reinhard, > > My advise would be to focus on Libav, as FFmpeg closely tracks >>> "upstream", and claims to ensures API/ABI compatibility. Michael >>> Niedermayer offered repeatedly in the past to merge every development >>> of Libav into FFmpeg, so that should solve your struggle for good. >>> >>> Feel free to drop by in #libav-devel if you find some API that is hard >>> to use or otherwise difficult. There are many nice guys that are happy >>> listen to your concerns! >>> >> >> Ok, we'll try that. Thanks for the feedback. >> > > I took time to make tests with the latest libav this morning, both trunk > and release/9 branch. > > The trunk wouldn't compile. Probably some API changes for the next > release, that's ok. > > 'release/9' is known to compile with GPAC because you and Alessio made us > a bug report in January: > * http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=693159 > * https://sourceforge.net/p/gpac/bugs/265/ > I can confirm GPAC still builds with the Debian unstable libav source: > * > http://ftp.de.debian.org/debian/pool/main/liba/libav/libav_9.8.orig.tar.xz, > taken from http://packages.debian.org/source/unstable/libav > > The latest 'release/9' doesn't compile. So there seem to be an API > breakage in the release/9 branch of libav. > > I made the same tests with FFmpeg. Short story: every version builds. > > I'm not judging or comparing the quality of both alternatives. But I > mention that libav gives us much more headache in term of API. > > Regards, > > Romain > >
_______________________________________________ pkg-multimedia-maintainers mailing list pkg-multimedia-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pkg-multimedia-maintainers
