On Mon, Jun 20, 2011 at 11:42:34AM +0100, Måns Rullgård wrote: > Kostya <[email protected]> writes: > > > On Mon, Jun 20, 2011 at 11:36:34AM +0100, Måns Rullgård wrote: > >> Kostya <[email protected]> writes: > >> > >> > On Mon, Jun 20, 2011 at 12:21:43PM +0200, Reinhard Tartler wrote: > >> >> That change broke ABI, so we need to recompile all applications > >> >> --- > >> >> libswscale/swscale.h | 4 ++-- > >> >> 1 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) > >> >> > >> >> diff --git a/libswscale/swscale.h b/libswscale/swscale.h > >> >> index b0ad912..24b447d 100644 > >> >> --- a/libswscale/swscale.h > >> >> +++ b/libswscale/swscale.h > >> >> @@ -29,8 +29,8 @@ > >> >> > >> >> #include "libavutil/avutil.h" > >> >> > >> >> -#define LIBSWSCALE_VERSION_MAJOR 1 > >> >> -#define LIBSWSCALE_VERSION_MINOR 1 > >> >> +#define LIBSWSCALE_VERSION_MAJOR 2 > >> >> +#define LIBSWSCALE_VERSION_MINOR 0 > >> >> #define LIBSWSCALE_VERSION_MICRO 0 > >> >> > >> >> #define LIBSWSCALE_VERSION_INT > >> >> AV_VERSION_INT(LIBSWSCALE_VERSION_MAJOR, \ > >> >> -- > >> > > >> > Why major version? IMO minor version bump is enough. > >> > >> A few external interfaces changed from long to int, which is a major break. > > > > For some reason we don't have rules for ABI change, except for this abstract > > in developer.texi: > > > > Incrementing the second component means backward compatible change > > (e.g. addition of a function to the public API or extension of an > > existing data structure). > > > > Just my can of paint... > > This change isn't binary compatible on all systems.
Obviously, but should we define that in rules or not? Originally nobody cared about binary form distribution at all. _______________________________________________ libav-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.libav.org/mailman/listinfo/libav-devel
