Quoting Diego Biurrun (2016-12-19 13:11:24) > On Mon, Dec 19, 2016 at 12:57:23PM +0100, Anton Khirnov wrote: > > 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 <[email protected]> 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. > > But still be bumped all in lockstep?
Only when appropriate. Everything depends on lavu, so a lavu bump means everything else has to be bumped too. But if lavu happens to have no deprecated stuff to remove, then there's no reason to break ABI compatibility for all the libs. -- Anton Khirnov _______________________________________________ libav-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.libav.org/mailman/listinfo/libav-devel
