On Thu, 7 Jul 2011, Diego Biurrun wrote:
> 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?
Not really, except for cluttering the output directory.
> Also, a log message should not sound quite as unsure, so I assume
> this is an RFC patch .. :)
You can regard it as a RFC patch yes :-)
> > --- 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.
Since all of this is executed as one single line in make, the '-' char for
ignoring errors can only be at the start of the line. If you add it at the
start of a later command after a semicolon, the shell will actually try to
execute it. So I think this aspect of it is all right.
// Martin
_______________________________________________
libav-devel mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.libav.org/mailman/listinfo/libav-devel
