On Sun, 18 Oct 2015 14:36:53 +0200 Luca Barbato <[email protected]> wrote:
> On 18/10/15 11:34, Anton Khirnov wrote: > > And even if, as you say, the function did not need any changes beyond > > renaming, then we should not touch them at all. Renaming (if not adding > > av prefixes to unprefixed stuff) is pretty much cosmetics, and I do not > > think it is a sufficient reason to break API. We're annoying our > > downstreams quite enough with all the other breakage. > > I'll prepare a set with > > - the new API: > av_packet_alloc() > av_packet_free() > av_packet_resize() > av_packet_move_ref() (I see at least 1 use for it) > - deprecations: > av_dup_packet() > av_free_packet() > av_grow_packet() > av_shrink_packet() > av_init_packet() > > - two renames w/out deprecation > avio_get_packet() > avio_append_packet() > > Sounds good enough for you? At least av_packet_free and av_free_packet are the same? _______________________________________________ libav-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.libav.org/mailman/listinfo/libav-devel
