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

Reinhard Tartler siretart
Tue Jun 8 16:41:19 CEST 2010

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.

Reinhard Tartler, KeyID 945348A4

More information about the ffmpeg-devel mailing list