On 9/4/2015 7:06 PM, Hendrik Leppkes wrote: > On Fri, Sep 4, 2015 at 11:43 PM, James Almer <jamr...@gmail.com> wrote: >> On 9/4/2015 6:19 PM, Carl Eugen Hoyos wrote: >>> James Almer <jamrial <at> gmail.com> writes: >>>>>> Isn't removing these two going to break >>>>>> compatibility with libav? >>>>> >>>>> (ABI or API?) >>>>> I don't think so but I absolutely may miss something. >>> >>>> ABI, you're removing elements from the middle of the >>>> struct. >>> >>> In which situation would that be an issue? >>> >>> Carl Eugen >> >> Figured that since direct access is apparently allowed for elements >> above ts_id it would be an issue for applications built with libav >> that then use ffmpeg's lavf at runtime. >> >> Disregard this if that's not the case. > > We are not really ABI compatible, and its not a goal worth going after.
Wonder why then is the code littered with duplicate defines and enum values (for example fourcc-like values for AVCodecID), setter/getter functions for struct elements not available in both projects, functions with different signatures and elements in some structs with different offsets depending if that incompatible_libav_abi option was requested during configure, etc... Some files are a mess purely because of compatibility considerations. If in the end it's not a concern, then we should grab a broom after bumping major versions this weekend. _______________________________________________ ffmpeg-devel mailing list ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org http://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-devel