command line tool deprecations

> It is not normal to do that when the unforked program with the same name still exists. It is as if LibreOffice forked OpenOffice (for perfectly good reasons), kept around the "ooffice" binary (again for perfectly good reasons of compatibility), but if you typed "ooffice", warned that OpenOffice was "deprecated" -- even though Apache OpenOffice was alive and well and making releases, despite admittedly being dormant earlier.

The program printed a deprecation message because the command line syntax changed, scripts might need to get updated, etc. This was not a case of just symlinking the two names.

Why do keep insisting that a simple heads-up message to users was done out of malice to spite a competing project?

Also note that "ffmpeg" (lowercase, command line program) is not equal to "FFmpeg" (mixed case, project name). While this might seem silly and inconsequential to you, nobody in either community confuses the two names.

> > Yes, this Coca Cola was not produced by Pepsi.

> Since you bring up that analogy (and ignoring questions of trademarks) -- it is as if Pepsi forked from Coca Cola, produced a "similar" product called Coca Cola for a while, and then told people who asked for coke that "Coca Cola is deprecated and will be removed in the future".

You argue from the asssumption that one of the two sides of the split is the original and the other is the fork. This is not the case here. Both sides claim to be the legitimate successors of the original FFmpeg project. Who forked who is very much disputed.

> > maybe you should also go look at the other side [libavresample]

> First, if other people act like jerks that doesn't mean you need to act like one.

Of course not, but you act as if one side is misbehaving here while the other side is not.

> Second, ffmpeg (unlike libavsample) is meant to be used by end-users and it is unlikely that end-users will see the message you quote on the issue tracker page.

So telling users that they may need to adapt to a new tool syntax is not OK, but telling developers that a library is unmaintained and should not be used is OK?