[FFmpeg-devel] [PATCH] Clean up lib* version definitions

[Måns Rullgård]

"Ivan Kalvachev" <ikalvachev at gmail.com> writes:

> On Feb 18, 2008 10:47 PM, M?ns Rullg?rd <mans at mansr.com> wrote:
>>
>> Diego Biurrun <diego at biurrun.de> writes:
>>
>> > On Sun, Feb 17, 2008 at 07:55:26PM +0000, M?ns Rullg?rd wrote:
>> >> Michael Niedermayer <michaelni at gmx.at> writes:
>> >>
>> >> > On Sun, Feb 17, 2008 at 06:14:31PM +0000, Mans Rullgard wrote:
>> >> >> Updating version numbers now requires changing only one place.
>> >> >> ---
>> >> >>  configure                 |    2 +-
>> >> >>  libavcodec/avcodec.h      |    6 ++++--
>> >> >>  libavdevice/avdevice.h    |    6 ++++--
>> >> >>  libavformat/avformat.h    |    6 ++++--
>> >> >>  libavutil/avutil.h        |   12 ++++++++++--
>> >> >>  libpostproc/postprocess.h |    6 ++++--
>> >> >
>> >> >>  6 files changed, 27 insertions(+), 11 deletions(-)
>> >> >
>> >> > Hmm, this more than doubles the number of lines of code, and requires
>> >>
>> >> The new macros aside, it's replacing two lines with three in each
>> >> header file (plus a blank line I thought looked better).  That's not
>> >> what I call more than double.
>> >>
>> >> > the reader to understand/guess the meaning for an additional layer of
>> >> > macros.
>> >>
>> >> I'd be happy to add a comment explaining them.
>> >>
>> >> > Do you really think this is a good idea?
>> >>
>> >> People have forgotten to update both sets of version numbers on
>> >> occasion, and there's been a much messier patch posted in the past.
>> >> IMHO, having the same information in two (or more) places is always
>> >> bad.
>> >
>> > Being one person who managed to update just one of the two version
>> > numbers in the past: I like Mans' proposal.
>>
>> Well, does anyone else have an opinion?
>
> Doesn't FFmpeg have policy of saying when patch have been committed?

Only when the committer remembers.

> Anyway.
> Congratulations, your commit broke MPlayer, most probably other
> applications too.
>
> vf_pp.c uses the header postprocess.h . In your patch you define the
> version using the new system.
>
> And here is the problem, the macros that calculates  the integer
> version is defined in avutil.h, but avutil.h is not included into the
> .c file ( as .c file doesn't use anything from avutil). The library
> prostprocess.h header file also doesn't include the avutil.h. The
> result , obscure compilation error.

Fixed.

Thanks for the sarcasm.

-- 
M?ns Rullg?rd
mans at mansr.com