Em 19-10-2015 15:28, Bruce Dubbs escreveu:
> Fernando de Oliveira wrote:
>> Is this OK?
>>
>> {{{
>> Optional
>>
>> ...
>>
>> OpenJPEG-2.1.0 (preference is for OpenJPEG1, due to regressions with
>> OpenJPEG2)
>
> I looked at that the other day and the log still says:
>
>
> checking for libjpeg6b... no
> checking for libjpeg... -ljpeg
> checking jpeglib.h usability... yes
> checking jpeglib.h presence... yes
> checking for jpeglib.h... yes
> checking libjpeg.h works correctly... ok
>
> use libjpeg: yes
> ...
> use libopenjpeg: yes
> with openjpeg1
>
> I'm not sure how to interpret that, but it looks like it is saying the
> above note may be overcome by events.
>
> -- Bruce
>
problem is that only openjepeg2 is listed as dependency.
What makes sense (not if is the correct one)
1. Both are listed and we we keep the note.
2. Only openjpeg1 is listed, and remove the note?
Option 2, I wrote after seen that your log is catching openjpeg1.
What seems wrong is listing openjpeg2 only as dependency, with or
without a note.
Did I make any sense?
--
[]s,
Fernando, aka SÃsifo
--
http://lists.linuxfromscratch.org/listinfo/blfs-dev
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html
Unsubscribe: See the above information page
