On Ter, 2012-10-23 at 08:44 +0200, Nicolas Chauvet wrote: > 2012/10/22 Sérgio Basto <[email protected]>: > > On Seg, 2012-10-22 at 09:00 +0200, Nicolas Chauvet wrote: > >> 2012/10/15 Richard Shaw <[email protected]>: > >> > What's the chance of getting x264 updated in F16? The current version > >> > (116) is too old for MythTV 0.26 and I'd like to keep the same version > >> > across all releases. I only need >=118 but the same version as is > >> > available in EL-6 would be great. > >> > >> What is the need of newer ABI ? is it because of ffmpeg built within > >> mythtv ? or mythtv code that dropped older x264 API ? > > > > Hi, x264 don't have a new ABI , just a soname bump , which will leads to > > dependency problems with yum > No you are wrong. > Unless the upstream developers miss understand how things work, a > version change in a SONAME is the consequence of an ABI breaks by the > removal of any symbol. > If you don't have any ABI changes but a SONAME change, then the > developer is wrong and you could fix the SONAME and packages using a > given library will still run.
Or maybe I'm packaging this wrongly and should be /usr/lib/libx264.so.0 instead /usr/lib/libx264.so.120 Since, version is 0.120 . I have to study that ... Thanks, > > On EL-6 we have x264 updated as in F-17 and if we have it on EL-6 why > > not on F16 ? > Because we were still in updates-testing repository and the EL-6 > branch in RPM Fusion was in development. So the development behaviour > was relevant. > > Nicolas (kwizart) -- Sérgio M. B.
