2012/10/23 Sérgio Basto <[email protected]>: > 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 . No , this is already accurate. Unfortunately the libx264 ABI isn't advertised as stable.
Nicolas (kwizart)
