On 28 May 2015 at 11:18, Kang Kai <[email protected]> wrote: > On 2015年05月28日 15:14, Jussi Kukkonen wrote: >> >> On 28 May 2015 at 04:26, Kai Kang <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>> Upgrade libav from version 9.16 to 9.18. Remove unused var INC_PR and >>> backport patch to fix CVE-2014-9676. >> >> I'm sorry I didn't ask this in the original discussion but... Is there >> a good reason for keeping 9.x in oe-core if we're bringing in 11.x >> (instead of either dropping 9.x or moving it to meta-oe)? >> >> I haven't found the API changes between 9 and 11 to be so large that >> they would warrant keeping two versions. Admittedly I'm not working >> with libav on daily basis so I might have missed things. > > > The original thought is just in case someone may want libav 9. According to > release log, series 11 > is > > "Libav 11 is API-, but not ABI-compatible with the previous major > release."
For full disclosure, libav 10 is not API-compatible with 9: the differences aren't big but will certainly require changes in some applications. Still, I haven't seen anything that would necessitate keeping two versions. - Jussi > So it is ok for us to use libav 11 as default. libav 9 recipe could be > removed if no one opposes. -- _______________________________________________ Openembedded-core mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openembedded.org/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-core
