On Mon, Jun 20, 2011 at 01:26:21PM +0200, Reinhard Tartler wrote: > On Mon, Jun 20, 2011 at 12:47:55 (CEST), Kostya wrote: > > > 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. > > We do care about binary form distribution since the 0.5 release. If we > didn't we could as well leave release alone completely. > > Ronald elaborated on irc a bit more. The thing is that on architectures > such as x86 (both 32 bit and 64bit), the stack element size is fixed, > which maintains alignment. This means that here, all is just > fine. However, as I understand Måns, we do support also other > architectures, where this property is not maintained and therefore, > applications will crash horribly. > > Since we don't want to have different major versions on different > architectures, I think we should bump major and add the paragraph above > to the commit message. This should IMO also go into the 0.7 release. > > Opinions welcome.
Just bump it and be done with it. _______________________________________________ libav-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.libav.org/mailman/listinfo/libav-devel
