On 18/10/15 14:58, Anton Khirnov wrote:
Quoting Luca Barbato (2015-10-18 14:36:53)
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?
I still do not see any reasonable justification for the last two
renames. The difference looks just cosmetic to me, even more so than the
av_foo_packet -> av_packet_foo change.
I can postpone it for when avio is a stand-alone library.
lu
_______________________________________________
libav-devel mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.libav.org/mailman/listinfo/libav-devel
