Re: [FFmpeg-devel] [PATCH 07/10] lavf: document that AVStream::codecpar may be modified by lavf after avformat_write_header(). This is assumed not to break API because it's already true (see e.g. matr

2018-03-15 Thread Rodger Combs
Could we just declare that lavf can update extradata (and nothing else) if it gets packets with new-extradata side-data? If not, I suppose we could either add something to AVStreamInternal, or do something internal in check_bitstream (and update movenc and matroskaenc, as both exhibit this behav

Re: [FFmpeg-devel] [PATCH 07/10] lavf: document that AVStream::codecpar may be modified by lavf after avformat_write_header(). This is assumed not to break API because it's already true (see e.g. matr

2018-03-15 Thread Hendrik Leppkes
On Fri, Mar 16, 2018 at 12:29 AM, Michael Niedermayer wrote: > On Wed, Mar 14, 2018 at 01:24:42AM -0500, Rodger Combs wrote: >> --- >> libavformat/avformat.h | 3 ++- >> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) >> >> diff --git a/libavformat/avformat.h b/libavformat/avformat.h >> index 9e87

Re: [FFmpeg-devel] [PATCH 07/10] lavf: document that AVStream::codecpar may be modified by lavf after avformat_write_header(). This is assumed not to break API because it's already true (see e.g. matr

2018-03-15 Thread Michael Niedermayer
On Wed, Mar 14, 2018 at 01:24:42AM -0500, Rodger Combs wrote: > --- > libavformat/avformat.h | 3 ++- > 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) > > diff --git a/libavformat/avformat.h b/libavformat/avformat.h > index 9e87d6cdac..5f0ebfc114 100644 > --- a/libavformat/avformat.h > +++ b/liba

Re: [FFmpeg-devel] [PATCH 07/10] lavf: document that AVStream::codecpar may be modified by lavf after avformat_write_header(). This is assumed not to break API because it's already true (see e.g. matr

2018-03-15 Thread James Almer
On 3/14/2018 3:24 AM, Rodger Combs wrote: > This is assumed not to break API because it's already true (see e.g. > matroskaenc handling of new AAC extradata) That's an API violation from the muxer's part instead. The correct approach is to fix the violation, not adapt the API around it. > --- >