On date Wednesday 2011-07-13 20:10:47 +0100, Måns Rullgård encoded: > Diego Biurrun <[email protected]> writes: > > > On Wed, Jul 13, 2011 at 07:25:43PM +0100, Måns Rullgård wrote: > >> Diego Biurrun <[email protected]> writes: > >> > >> > On Wed, Jul 13, 2011 at 06:18:07PM +0100, Mans Rullgard wrote: > >> >> --- a/Makefile > >> >> +++ b/Makefile > >> >> @@ -20,13 +20,15 @@ $(foreach VAR,$(SILENT),$(eval override $(VAR) = > >> >> @$($(VAR)))) > >> >> > >> >> +ALLFFLIBS = avcodec avdevice avfilter avformat avutil postproc swscale > >> >> + > >> >> IFLAGS := -I. -I$(SRC_PATH) > >> >> CPPFLAGS := $(IFLAGS) $(CPPFLAGS) > >> >> CFLAGS += $(ECFLAGS) > >> >> CCFLAGS = $(CFLAGS) > >> >> YASMFLAGS += $(IFLAGS) -Pconfig.asm > >> >> HOSTCFLAGS += $(IFLAGS) > >> >> -LDFLAGS += $(ALLFFLIBS:%=-Llib%) > >> >> +LDFLAGS := $(ALLFFLIBS:%=-Llib%) $(LDFLAGS) > >> > > >> > Why not drop ALLFFLIBS and go for > >> > > >> > LDFLAGS := $(FFLIBS:%=-Llib%) $(LDFLAGS) > >> > > >> > this would simplify the Makefile slightly and -Llibfoo for disabled > >> > foo is pointless anyway... > >> > >> If there were a libpostproc test program, that would break it. > > > > This is to be expected if libpostproc is disabled, so I don't see a > > problem. Or what else are you trying to say? > > I meant to say it would break if one of your pending patches is applied.
Ping. _______________________________________________ libav-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.libav.org/mailman/listinfo/libav-devel
