<html>
<head>
<base href="http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/" />
</head>
<body>
<p>
<div>
<b><a class="bz_bug_link
bz_status_NEW "
title="NEW - Review request: libav - Audio and video processing libraries"
href="http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=4258#c7">Comment # 7</a>
on <a class="bz_bug_link
bz_status_NEW "
title="NEW - Review request: libav - Audio and video processing libraries"
href="http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=4258">bug 4258</a>
from <span class="vcard"><a class="email" href="mailto:anto.trande@gmail.com" title="Antonio Trande <anto.trande@gmail.com>"> <span class="fn">Antonio Trande</span></a>
</span></b>
<pre>(In reply to Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski from <a href="show_bug.cgi?id=4258#c6">comment #6</a>)
<span class="quote">> Is there any real need for this package in RPMFusion? FFmpeg is almost 100%
> backwards compatible with libav. The one package that I thought still used
> bundled libav (gstreamer1-libav) actually switched back to FFmpeg last year.
>
> Most of the symbols in the provided libraries have the same names, so you'd
> have to be extremely careful not to end up with another package depending on
> both ffmpeg-libs and libav in the future. Since libvdpau-va-gl (the
> vaapi-to-vdpau bridge that's required to use Intel GPUs via vdpau) depends
> on ffmpeg-libs, this might be trickier than you think. Even renaming the
> libraries and their sonames won't help here. You'd have to rename the
> symbols, too.
> </span >
We could set Conflicts tag to prevent 'libav' installation if FFmpeg is already
installed (and viceversa).
I don't know which one is the better today, but upstream says that 'FFmpeg' and
'libav' are different especially at API level.
I think that if it's possible, we can provide both and leave the choice to the
developers.</pre>
</div>
</p>
<hr>
<span>You are receiving this mail because:</span>
<ul>
<li>You are on the CC list for the bug.</li>
</ul>
</body>
</html>