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

[Soft Works]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: ffmpeg-devel <ffmpeg-devel-bounces at ffmpeg.org> On Behalf Of
> Anton Khirnov
> Sent: Monday, April 11, 2022 9:47 AM
> To: FFmpeg development discussions and patches <ffmpeg-
> devel at 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 at 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