Hi Lynne

On Tue, Aug 12, 2025 at 03:38:31PM +0900, Lynne wrote:
> On 11/08/2025 22:10, Michael Niedermayer wrote:
> > Hi Lynne
> > 
> > On Mon, Aug 11, 2025 at 09:22:26PM +0900, Lynne wrote:
> > [...]
> > > To me, at least, I can imagine five options:
> > > 
> > > Option 1 - we have an official binary plugin interface, free for
> > >             everyone to use with no limitation.
> > 
> > That requires someone to create that "binary plugin interface",
> > that person seems not existing, so i dont think its an "option"
> 
> Its a better option in that its a one-time affair, and also there's no
> endorsement of such plugins by us.

noone has endorsed anything

and supporting binary plugins is not a "one time affair" its the very
opposit, its ongoing continous work to maintain a compatible and working
API and ABI


> Also, we had such an infrastructure in the past with users being able to
> give their own AVCodec structures to lavc, without us having guarantees that
> we wouldn't break this.
> It wouldn't take much to revert that and implement support for this, along
> with freezing AVCodec longer-term than major bumps.

thats just talk, you wont maintain any of this.

and i doubt the community will freeze the whole API and ABI for it nor
should we.
And if its not frozen then a API needs to be designed for these binary plugins

But you are welcome to create a functioing API for binary plugins and
maintain it long term.
Iam certainly not going to stop you. This of course has nothing to do with
source pligins. They are entirely separate things.

thx

[...]
-- 
Michael     GnuPG fingerprint: 9FF2128B147EF6730BADF133611EC787040B0FAB

Everything should be made as simple as possible, but not simpler.
-- Albert Einstein