On 27/05/15 5:04 PM, Martin Storsjö wrote: > On Wed, 27 May 2015, Vittorio Giovara wrote: > >> Bump the minimum libvpx version to 1.4.0 so that all pixel >> formats are present. Add new VP9 profiles. > > Sorry to be a bit late to the party, but how bad would it be to keep compat > with older versions? Was there any other argument for dropping older versions > than "because we can", and "x265 did it"? Allowing people to build with the > earlier versions with the reduced (old/existing) featureset is something that > I'd appreciate. I think x265 might have been a bit special case since that > involved a bigger API change than this, to the point that keeping compat > would be uglier? > > Or would it require some ugly static initialization of the pixfmt list? In > that case I guess it can be argued that it's simpler just to bump the > requirement.
Yes, that plus a considerable amount of ifdeffery in the code. It will be ugly, but i also think it's worth keeping compatibility with at least 1.3.0 > > // Martin > _______________________________________________ > libav-devel mailing list > libav-devel@libav.org > https://lists.libav.org/mailman/listinfo/libav-devel _______________________________________________ libav-devel mailing list libav-devel@libav.org https://lists.libav.org/mailman/listinfo/libav-devel
