Re: OpenCV C-API support
Ghislain Vaillant <ghisvail@gmail.com> writes:
>> 2. Patch our build of OpenCV3 that works with the older API. Right now,
>> this actually is simple (I think). We'd just need to move the
>> definition of cvRound() to C header instead of a C++ one. I'm sure
>> there're details to be worked out, but it LOOKS easy. With time,
>> these updates could become difficult, but not yet.
> It might not stay that simple in the future.
>
> Again, that's part of evaluating the risks of taking on ourselves the
> maintenance burden.
>
> Usually, if upstream does not care, I believe we should not either.
Consumers of opencv-dev aren't just packages. Users build against this
library directly, and this breakage is causing pain. I'm saying this as
just such an annoyed user. I'm completely uninterested in a maintenance
burden that's adversarial with upstream, but right now the broken thing
should be easy to fix. Do you see downsides to keeping it working while
it's still simple?
>> I favor option 2. Any strong opinions either way? If I don't hear any
>> complaining, I'll get the patches ready, and then talk about an actual
>> upload.
>>
> If some legacy packages fail to keep up with the development of OpenCV,
> then they should probably rely on a different distribution mechanism
> than Debian. It's unfortunate upstream did not commit to keep a stable
> C-API, but downstreams should also inform themselves and adapt as part
> of their risk assessment.
Yeah. Right. Thing is they didn't break the APIs. The biggest problem is
that the C headers you're supposed to #include have some inlined
functions that call stuff that now lives in a C++ header that only is
included #ifdef __cplusplus.
Let me see how simple the patch really would be.
Reply to: