Quoting Diego Biurrun (2016-12-06 23:15:48) > On Tue, Dec 06, 2016 at 04:23:09PM -0500, Vittorio Giovara wrote: > > On Tue, Dec 6, 2016 at 2:43 AM, Diego Biurrun <di...@biurrun.de> wrote: > > > On Tue, Dec 06, 2016 at 12:27:22AM -0500, Vittorio Giovara wrote: > > >> --- a/libavdevice/version.h > > >> +++ b/libavdevice/version.h > > >> @@ -27,8 +27,8 @@ > > >> > > >> -#define LIBAVDEVICE_VERSION_MAJOR 56 > > >> -#define LIBAVDEVICE_VERSION_MINOR 1 > > >> +#define LIBAVDEVICE_VERSION_MAJOR 57 > > >> +#define LIBAVDEVICE_VERSION_MINOR 0 > > >> #define LIBAVDEVICE_VERSION_MICRO 0 > > >> > > >> --- a/libavresample/version.h > > >> +++ b/libavresample/version.h > > >> @@ -27,7 +27,7 @@ > > >> > > >> -#define LIBAVRESAMPLE_VERSION_MAJOR 3 > > >> +#define LIBAVRESAMPLE_VERSION_MAJOR 4 > > >> #define LIBAVRESAMPLE_VERSION_MINOR 0 > > >> #define LIBAVRESAMPLE_VERSION_MICRO 0 > > >> > > >> --- a/libswscale/version.h > > >> +++ b/libswscale/version.h > > >> @@ -26,7 +26,7 @@ > > >> > > >> -#define LIBSWSCALE_VERSION_MAJOR 4 > > >> +#define LIBSWSCALE_VERSION_MAJOR 5 > > >> #define LIBSWSCALE_VERSION_MINOR 0 > > >> #define LIBSWSCALE_VERSION_MICRO 0 > > > > > > These bumps seem gratuitous, there are no deprecated APIs in these > > > libraries. > > > > I'm aware there are not ABI-changes in those libs, but historically > > we've always bumped every library to avoid any possible version > > conflict. See for example 6d3ea1957f681b3bf9c752e6d21a501cc8d4180d or > > 3bc2e89c76e88ae6f1fd5287e0b11abcfc3c601c. While most of the root > > causes for those incompatibilities have been long resolved, it's still > > a good practice and relatively harmless to do. > > There was this idea of a single version number for all libraries. > Maybe it's time to revisit it?
I do not think it is a good idea. IMO the libraries should be growing more separate, not less. -- Anton Khirnov _______________________________________________ libav-devel mailing list libav-devel@libav.org https://lists.libav.org/mailman/listinfo/libav-devel
