[FFmpeg-devel] [PATCH] restoring binary compatibility with ffmpeg 0.5

[Michael Niedermayer]

On Tue, Jun 08, 2010 at 10:48:13PM +0200, Reinhard Tartler wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 08, 2010 at 20:44:41 (CEST), Michael Niedermayer wrote:
> 
> > On Tue, Jun 08, 2010 at 04:41:19PM +0200, Reinhard Tartler wrote:
> >> On Mon, Jun 07, 2010 at 10:20:45 (CEST), Reinhard Tartler wrote:
> >> 
> >> > On Mo, Jun 07, 2010 at 10:02:19 (CEST), M?ns Rullg?rd wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> Reinhard Tartler <siretart at tauware.de> writes:
> >> >>
> >> >>> On Mo, Jun 07, 2010 at 08:02:54 (CEST), Reimar D?ffinger wrote:
> >> >>>
> >> >>>> On Mon, Jun 07, 2010 at 07:52:11AM +0200, Reinhard Tartler wrote:
> >> >>>>> void av_init_packet(AVPacket *pkt) av_weak_alias(av_init_packet);
> >> >>>>> void av_init_packet(AVPacket *pkt)
> >> >>>>> {
> >> >>>>>     av_log(NULL, AV_LOG_WARNING, "diverting av_*_packet function calls to libavcodec. Recompile to improve performance\n");
> >> >>>>>     av_init_packet(pkt);
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>> ff_internal_init_packet() and add one such to lavc.
> >> >>>> Either way, we should make sure we have a solution the next time.
> >> >>>> Since the @LIBAVFORMAT version is not accepted in lavc, does that
> >> >>>> mean no matter what we do, we will always break ABI if we move code?!
> >> >>>
> >> >>> if I understand you correctly, you not only consider ABI breakages
> >> >>> between releases, but also between any svn revision? Then I fear yes.
> >> >>> However, the break is already there since quite some time, and fixing it
> >> >>> to have it compatible to ffmpeg 0.5 has (or at least should have)
> >> >>> priority, IMO.
> >> >>
> >> >> For the 0.6 release possibly.  For trunk I don't think that is
> >> >> important.
> >> >
> >> > Agreed. Still, I'd prefer to not do drastic measures in 0.6 like
> >> > prematurely bumping soname or something. How do people feel to apply my
> >> > propsed "half-fix" to 0.6 only, and bump soname in trunk?
> >> 
> >> The discussion on this thread was very vivid but has now ended rather
> >> abruptly, and this question remains unanswered.
> >> 
> >> Does anyone object to have this "half-fix" in 0.6 now, and leave it an
> >> open issue for trunk until we either have found a better fix or bumped
> >> SONAME? If someone needs more time to think about this, please say so.
> >
> > i have no awnser atm but i have a question
> > how do we move symbols in the future from lavf->lavc / lavc->lavu ?
> > this is something we have to do occasionally, and bumping soname is imo
> > not reasonable for this.
> 
> I agree that it is pretty annoying, but I don't think it's unreasonable.

i guess we disagree here. I would consider fixing the problem where it is
more reasonable than inconvenciening all projects on linux

either way, the little bit i can do to push the linkers to be fixed i will
do. That is i will block any and all major version bumps that would not be
required where the linker fixed.

[...]
-- 
Michael     GnuPG fingerprint: 9FF2128B147EF6730BADF133611EC787040B0FAB

Democracy is the form of government in which you can choose your dictator
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
URL: <http://lists.mplayerhq.hu/pipermail/ffmpeg-devel/attachments/20100609/10eaadea/attachment.pgp>