[FFmpeg-devel] Upgrade Trouble

Uoti Urpala uoti.urpala
Mon Dec 7 21:27:29 CET 2009

On Mon, 2009-12-07 at 14:39 +0100, Michael Niedermayer wrote:
> Iam not arguing not to version lavc/lavf, my argument was just that its
> for us no advantage to add the versioning stuff to all libs in the same
> time/revission.

Why not do it at the same time? If there is a working implementation
there's little reason not to use it for all the libraries. Any user who
cares about versioning at all is likely to want it for every library.

>  We could do lavu first (which is easy) then wait a week and
> see if any unexpected bugs come up and after that do lavc&lavf.

Why would lavc/lavf be any harder? If you just add a SONAME-based
version that shouldn't be any more difficult for lavc/lavf.

How would the waiting help? If nothing comes up over the week it was
just wasted time. If something does come up then did it really help that
lavc/lavf was not tested at the same time?

Anyway if you're only talking about one week of delay then it doesn't
matter too much.

> > Even if you want to rely on the linker to get the right result for
> > applications without explicit versioning that changes very little.
> it reduces the number of packages needing a rebuild by a large amount

Enough are still left that the same arguments apply.

> > Rebuilding multiple packages is still needed, and it's still better to
> > do it for all of lavc/lavf/lavu at once. 
> at the distro level doing it all at once might make sense but iam not any
> distros maintainer, i was primarely speaking of ffmpeg svn and here there
> is no real point in introducing versioning for all libs at the same time.
> Small changes are better if something goes wrong ...

I'd expect less disruption overall if all library-specific issues can be
tested and fixed at the same time.

More information about the ffmpeg-devel mailing list