[FFmpeg-devel] warning about configuration mismatch between ff* binaries and libraries

[FFmpeg-devel] warning about configuration mismatch between ff* binaries and libraries

[Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski]

Dear Developers!
I'm curious about the warning about configuration mismatch between ff*
binaries and the libraries introduced in:

https://git.ffmpeg.org/gitweb/ffmpeg.git/commit/9120e2cd3fadfa60269e94f97fc8107974c586fc

At Fedora, we're interested in having two builds: one built with limited
set of codecs[1] that is legally distributable in the US (since Red Hat,
Fedora sponsor is a US-based company) and another, with a more complete
set of codecs[2] distributed by RPM Fusion. The builds are intended to
be drop-in replacements. We'd like to be able to distribute just one set
of ff* binaries and only have two different interchangeable builds of
libraries.

The idea is to have the builds differ by enabled codecs only and have
the rest of the configuration the same (even if it's not the case
today).

So, does that warning still make sense today? Will something break
if we swap the libraries but keep the binary on user systems?

[1] Specifically, here are the codecs enabled in Fedora builds:
    https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/ffmpeg/blob/rawhide/f/enable_decoders
    and the corresponding configure call:
    https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/ffmpeg/blob/rawhide/f/ffmpeg.spec#_532
[2] And here's the RPM Fusion build configure call:
    https://pkgs.rpmfusion.org/cgit/free/ffmpeg.git/tree/ffmpeg.spec#n298

Regards,
Dominik
-- 
Fedora   https://getfedora.org  |  RPM Fusion  http://rpmfusion.org
There should be a science of discontent. People need hard times and
oppression to develop psychic muscles.
        -- from "Collected Sayings of Muad'Dib" by the Princess Irulan
_______________________________________________
ffmpeg-devel mailing list
ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org
https://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-devel

To unsubscribe, visit link above, or email
ffmpeg-devel-request@ffmpeg.org with subject "unsubscribe".

Re: [FFmpeg-devel] warning about configuration mismatch between ff* binaries and libraries

["zhilizhao(赵志立)"]

> On Apr 11, 2022, at 5:31 AM, Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski <dominik@greysector.net> wrote:
> 
> Dear Developers!
> I'm curious about the warning about configuration mismatch between ff*
> binaries and the libraries introduced in:
> 
> https://git.ffmpeg.org/gitweb/ffmpeg.git/commit/9120e2cd3fadfa60269e94f97fc8107974c586fc
> 
> At Fedora, we're interested in having two builds: one built with limited
> set of codecs[1] that is legally distributable in the US (since Red Hat,
> Fedora sponsor is a US-based company) and another, with a more complete
> set of codecs[2] distributed by RPM Fusion. The builds are intended to
> be drop-in replacements. We'd like to be able to distribute just one set
> of ff* binaries and only have two different interchangeable builds of
> libraries.
> 
> The idea is to have the builds differ by enabled codecs only and have
> the rest of the configuration the same (even if it's not the case
> today).
> 
> So, does that warning still make sense today? Will something break
> if we swap the libraries but keep the binary on user systems?

That’s exactly an example of why the warning is useful. Otherwise user can
be confused why some codecs are missing while banner says they are enabled
by configure. So yes, the warning still make sense.

For the second question, I guess it may miss a few features depending on the
configuration. Try `grep CONFIG_ -r fftools/` and test.

> 
> [1] Specifically, here are the codecs enabled in Fedora builds:
>    https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/ffmpeg/blob/rawhide/f/enable_decoders
>    and the corresponding configure call:
>    https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/ffmpeg/blob/rawhide/f/ffmpeg.spec#_532
> [2] And here's the RPM Fusion build configure call:
>    https://pkgs.rpmfusion.org/cgit/free/ffmpeg.git/tree/ffmpeg.spec#n298
> 
> Regards,
> Dominik
> -- 
> Fedora   https://getfedora.org  |  RPM Fusion  http://rpmfusion.org
> There should be a science of discontent. People need hard times and
> oppression to develop psychic muscles.
>        -- from "Collected Sayings of Muad'Dib" by the Princess Irulan
> _______________________________________________
> ffmpeg-devel mailing list
> ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org
> https://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-devel
> 
> To unsubscribe, visit link above, or email
> ffmpeg-devel-request@ffmpeg.org with subject "unsubscribe".

_______________________________________________
ffmpeg-devel mailing list
ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org
https://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-devel

To unsubscribe, visit link above, or email
ffmpeg-devel-request@ffmpeg.org with subject "unsubscribe".

Re: [FFmpeg-devel] warning about configuration mismatch between ff* binaries and libraries

[Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski]

On Monday, 11 April 2022 at 05:15, "zhilizhao(赵志立)" wrote:
> > On Apr 11, 2022, at 5:31 AM, Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski
> > <dominik@greysector.net> wrote:
> > 
> > Dear Developers!
> > I'm curious about the warning about configuration mismatch between
> > ff* binaries and the libraries introduced in:
> > 
> > https://git.ffmpeg.org/gitweb/ffmpeg.git/commit/9120e2cd3fadfa60269e94f97fc8107974c586fc
> > 
[...]
> > The idea is to have the builds differ by enabled codecs only and
> > have the rest of the configuration the same (even if it's not the
> > case today).
> > 
> > So, does that warning still make sense today? Will something break
> > if we swap the libraries but keep the binary on user systems?
> 
> That’s exactly an example of why the warning is useful. Otherwise user
> can be confused why some codecs are missing while banner says they are
> enabled by configure. So yes, the warning still make sense.

Granted.

> For the second question, I guess it may miss a few features depending
> on the configuration. Try `grep CONFIG_ -r fftools/` and test.

Thanks for the tip.

Regards,
Dominik
-- 
Fedora   https://getfedora.org  |  RPM Fusion  http://rpmfusion.org
There should be a science of discontent. People need hard times and
oppression to develop psychic muscles.
        -- from "Collected Sayings of Muad'Dib" by the Princess Irulan
_______________________________________________
ffmpeg-devel mailing list
ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org
https://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-devel

To unsubscribe, visit link above, or email
ffmpeg-devel-request@ffmpeg.org with subject "unsubscribe".

Re: [FFmpeg-devel] warning about configuration mismatch between ff* binaries and libraries

[Anton Khirnov]

Quoting zhilizhao(赵志立) (2022-04-11 05:15:59)
> 
> 
> > On Apr 11, 2022, at 5:31 AM, Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski <dominik@greysector.net> wrote:
> > 
> > Dear Developers!
> > I'm curious about the warning about configuration mismatch between ff*
> > binaries and the libraries introduced in:
> > 
> > https://git.ffmpeg.org/gitweb/ffmpeg.git/commit/9120e2cd3fadfa60269e94f97fc8107974c586fc
> > 
> > At Fedora, we're interested in having two builds: one built with limited
> > set of codecs[1] that is legally distributable in the US (since Red Hat,
> > Fedora sponsor is a US-based company) and another, with a more complete
> > set of codecs[2] distributed by RPM Fusion. The builds are intended to
> > be drop-in replacements. We'd like to be able to distribute just one set
> > of ff* binaries and only have two different interchangeable builds of
> > libraries.
> > 
> > The idea is to have the builds differ by enabled codecs only and have
> > the rest of the configuration the same (even if it's not the case
> > today).
> > 
> > So, does that warning still make sense today? Will something break
> > if we swap the libraries but keep the binary on user systems?
> 
> That’s exactly an example of why the warning is useful. Otherwise user can
> be confused why some codecs are missing while banner says they are enabled
> by configure. So yes, the warning still make sense.

I would prefer to not show all that noise in the banner, which would
also resolve the confusion. Build information should be reduced to
loglevel verbose IMO.

I would also be in favor of removing the mismatch warning. Different
builds are supposed to be ABI-compatible, so mismatching configuration
is not a cause for a warning.

-- 
Anton Khirnov
_______________________________________________
ffmpeg-devel mailing list
ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org
https://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-devel

To unsubscribe, visit link above, or email
ffmpeg-devel-request@ffmpeg.org with subject "unsubscribe".

Re: [FFmpeg-devel] warning about configuration mismatch between ff* binaries and libraries

[Nicolas George]

[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 327 bytes --]

Anton Khirnov (12022-04-11):
> I would prefer to not show all that noise in the banner, which would
> also resolve the confusion. Build information should be reduced to
> loglevel verbose IMO.

The people who do actual support on the users mailing-list and tracker
do not want that.

Regards,

-- 
  Nicolas George

[-- Attachment #1.2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 833 bytes --]

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/plain, Size: 251 bytes --]

_______________________________________________
ffmpeg-devel mailing list
ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org
https://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-devel

To unsubscribe, visit link above, or email
ffmpeg-devel-request@ffmpeg.org with subject "unsubscribe".

Re: [FFmpeg-devel] warning about configuration mismatch between ff* binaries and libraries

[Soft Works]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: ffmpeg-devel <ffmpeg-devel-bounces@ffmpeg.org> On Behalf Of
> Anton Khirnov
> Sent: Monday, April 11, 2022 9:47 AM
> To: FFmpeg development discussions and patches <ffmpeg-
> devel@ffmpeg.org>
> Subject: Re: [FFmpeg-devel] warning about configuration mismatch
> between ff* binaries and libraries
> 
> Quoting zhilizhao(赵志立) (2022-04-11 05:15:59)
> >
> >
> > > On Apr 11, 2022, at 5:31 AM, Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski
> <dominik@greysector.net> wrote:
> > >
> > > Dear Developers!
> > > I'm curious about the warning about configuration mismatch between
> ff*
> > > binaries and the libraries introduced in:
> > >
> > >
> https://git.ffmpeg.org/gitweb/ffmpeg.git/commit/9120e2cd3fadfa60269e94
> f97fc8107974c586fc
> > >
> > > At Fedora, we're interested in having two builds: one built with
> limited
> > > set of codecs[1] that is legally distributable in the US (since
> Red Hat,
> > > Fedora sponsor is a US-based company) and another, with a more
> complete
> > > set of codecs[2] distributed by RPM Fusion. The builds are
> intended to
> > > be drop-in replacements. We'd like to be able to distribute just
> one set
> > > of ff* binaries and only have two different interchangeable builds
> of
> > > libraries.
> > >
> > > The idea is to have the builds differ by enabled codecs only and
> have
> > > the rest of the configuration the same (even if it's not the case
> > > today).
> > >
> > > So, does that warning still make sense today? Will something break
> > > if we swap the libraries but keep the binary on user systems?
> >
> > That’s exactly an example of why the warning is useful. Otherwise
> user can
> > be confused why some codecs are missing while banner says they are
> enabled
> > by configure. So yes, the warning still make sense.
> 
> I would prefer to not show all that noise in the banner, which would
> also resolve the confusion. Build information should be reduced to
> loglevel verbose IMO.

I agree and I would suggest reconsidering James' earlier patch for this.

softworkz
_______________________________________________
ffmpeg-devel mailing list
ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org
https://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-devel

To unsubscribe, visit link above, or email
ffmpeg-devel-request@ffmpeg.org with subject "unsubscribe".