On 27/05/15 22:04, 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?
Actually being compatible is _MUCH_ nicer than supporting older vpx (did post how to before). > 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. It would require to sprinkle ifdefs here and there. lu _______________________________________________ libav-devel mailing list libav-devel@libav.org https://lists.libav.org/mailman/listinfo/libav-devel
