On Mon, Dec 12, 2011 at 11:25:42PM +0000, Måns Rullgård wrote:
> Diego Biurrun <[email protected]> writes:
> > On Mon, Dec 12, 2011 at 10:36:36PM +0000, Måns Rullgård wrote:
> >> Diego Biurrun <[email protected]> writes:
> >> 
> >> > On Wed, Jul 13, 2011 at 06:33:49PM +0200, Diego Biurrun wrote:
> >> >> None of the compiled binaries use any of libpostproc's symbols except
> >> >> for trivial ones that print version information.  Thus the dependency
> >> >> yields no benefit and it is preferable to drop it.
> >> >> ---
> >> >>  LICENSE    |    2 +-
> >> >>  Makefile   |    6 ++++--
> >> >>  cmdutils.c |    2 --
> >> >>  3 files changed, 5 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
> >> >
> >> > .. ping ..
> >> 
> >> We could also simply delete libpostproc.  It sure would deserve it.
> >
> > That would not be something I would absolutely object against, but could
> > we please stay with the topic at hand?  This patch can go in while you
> > get libpostproc deleted or not.  If libpostproc is deleted, it does not
> > hurt; if it stays it is a vast improvement.
> 
> I would not call it vast, whatever it is.

Whatever.  Now would you please stop filibustering and just approve
the thing?

Diego
_______________________________________________
libav-devel mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.libav.org/mailman/listinfo/libav-devel

Reply via email to