On Sun, Sep 6, 2015 at 2:12 PM, Ganesh Ajjanagadde wrote:
> On Sun, Sep 6, 2015 at 2:03 PM, James Almer wrote:
>> On 9/6/2015 5:23 PM, Ganesh Ajjanagadde wrote:
>>> On Sun, Sep 6, 2015 at 1:07 PM, Nicolas George wrote:
Le decadi 20 fructidor, an CCXXIII, James Almer a écrit :
> Is it co
On Sun, Sep 6, 2015 at 2:03 PM, James Almer wrote:
> On 9/6/2015 5:23 PM, Ganesh Ajjanagadde wrote:
>> On Sun, Sep 6, 2015 at 1:07 PM, Nicolas George wrote:
>>> Le decadi 20 fructidor, an CCXXIII, James Almer a écrit :
Is it confirmed that we are not ABI compatible at all with libav?
>>>
>>>
On 9/6/2015 5:23 PM, Ganesh Ajjanagadde wrote:
> On Sun, Sep 6, 2015 at 1:07 PM, Nicolas George 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 m
On 9/6/2015 5:37 PM, Paul B Mahol wrote:
> Alternative is to remove fourcc and add gap, fine for me too.
That's what the patch does. Removes duplicate entries, fourcc values and
adds a gap between libav's latest codecid for each group and the first of
our own additions.
Will send it later today.
Dana 6. 9. 2015. 22:03 osoba "James Almer" napisala je:
>
> On 9/6/2015 5:32 AM, Nicolas George wrote:
> > Avoid giving the same SONAME as the fork if ABI compatibility
> > is not offered.
> >
> > Not necessary for libpostproc and libswresample but done for
> > consistency.
> >
> > Not done for li
On Sun, Sep 06, 2015 at 01:23:10PM -0700, Ganesh Ajjanagadde wrote:
> On Sun, Sep 6, 2015 at 1:07 PM, Nicolas George 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 1
On Sun, Sep 6, 2015 at 1:07 PM, Nicolas George 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 matte
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, pe
On 9/6/2015 5:32 AM, Nicolas George wrote:
> Avoid giving the same SONAME as the fork if ABI compatibility
> is not offered.
>
> Not necessary for libpostproc and libswresample but done for
> consistency.
>
> Not done for libavresample.
Is it confirmed that we are not ABI compatible at all with
Le decadi 20 fructidor, an CCXXIII, Carl Eugen Hoyos a écrit :
> When this was suggested to Debian, their answer -
> iirc - was that this would not fix a possible
> compatibility issue.
That may not fix theirs, but that would fix a lot of issues still. Two
libraries with different ABI should not
Nicolas George nsup.org> writes:
> Avoid giving the same SONAME as the fork if ABI
> compatibility is not offered.
(I am neither a supporter of this patch nor do I
in any way object.)
When this was suggested to Debian, their answer -
iirc - was that this would not fix a possible
compatibili
Avoid giving the same SONAME as the fork if ABI compatibility
is not offered.
Not necessary for libpostproc and libswresample but done for
consistency.
Not done for libavresample.
Signed-off-by: Nicolas George
---
libavcodec/flac.c | 2 +-
libavcodec/flac.h
12 matches
Mail list logo
