2016-10-12 16:15 GMT+02:00 Kevin Kofler <kevin.kof...@chello.at>:
> Michael Cronenworth wrote:
>> This is not ideal. The ffmpeg 3.0.x branch is not going unmaintained
>> AFAIK. We can't push out a big rebuild of a major library so one, new
>> package can be introduced into F24.
> Huh? Upstream says 3.1 is API- and ABI-compatible to 3.0 (with only one
> application needed fixing for some reason), so it should be perfectly
> suitable as an update. This is similar to Qt upgrades that have often been
> done in Fedora (where there are also a few odd packages that invariably need
> rebuilding due to (ab)using private Qt APIs).
> Introducing a second package for the new version is a horrible idea, it will
> lead to symbol conflicts (in applications accidentally transitively linking
> both versions) and a waste of space. I would just upgrade the existing
> package to the new version.
I totally agreed with that, That's why I think we shouldn't have
multiple version of ffmpeg libs in EL7 where packagers can link any
Unfortunately this doesn't seem a common knowledge across all packagers.