Diego Biurrun <[email protected]> writes: > 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?
Oh, it's that time of the month again... No, I have more important things to do than make sure your silly little patches don't break something subtle. -- Måns Rullgård [email protected] _______________________________________________ libav-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.libav.org/mailman/listinfo/libav-devel
