On Mon, Dec 12, 2011 at 11:43:08PM +0000, Måns Rullgård wrote: > 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.
I call for a mediator. Reinhard, Luca, Ronald, Diego#2, Justin, Martin, Benjamin? Diego _______________________________________________ libav-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.libav.org/mailman/listinfo/libav-devel
