On Thu, Jul 07, 2011 at 09:48:09AM +0300, Martin Storsjö wrote: > Users of these files normally use the unversioned file anyway, > I think. That's what our documentation recommends at least.
Is there a problem with installing both? Also, a log message should not sound quite as unsure, so I assume this is an RFC patch .. :) > --- a/configure > +++ b/configure > @@ -2421,7 +2421,6 @@ case $target_os in > SLIB_INSTALL_EXTRA_CMD='-install -m 644 > $(SUBDIR)$(SLIBNAME_WITH_MAJOR:$(SLIBSUF)=.lib) > "$(SHLIBDIR)/$(SLIBNAME:$(SLIBSUF)=.lib)"; \ > - install -m 644 $(SUBDIR)$(SLIBNAME_WITH_MAJOR:$(SLIBSUF)=.lib) > "$(SHLIBDIR)/$(SLIBNAME_WITH_MAJOR:$(SLIBSUF)=.lib)"; \ > install -d "$(LIBDIR)"; \ > install -m 644 $(SUBDIR)lib$(SLIBNAME:$(SLIBSUF)=.dll.a) > "$(LIBDIR)/lib$(SLIBNAME:$(SLIBSUF)=.dll.a)"; \ unrelated: I wonder why the first install command is prefixed with '-' while the others are not. I suspect this is an oversight. Diego _______________________________________________ libav-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.libav.org/mailman/listinfo/libav-devel
