On 06/08/2019 17:05, Bruce Dubbs via blfs-dev wrote: > On 8/6/19 8:43 AM, Jean-Marc Pigeon via blfs-dev wrote: >> On 08/06/2019 09:38 AM, Pierre Labastie via blfs-dev wrote: >>> On 06/08/2019 15:03, Jean-Marc Pigeon via blfs-dev wrote: >>>> Hello, >>>> >>>> According web page about libvpx-1.8.1, using yasm is >>>> mandatory because: >>>> >>>> "compiling with NASM-2.14.02 is currently broken" >>>> >>>> I have seen no difference (naked eyes) between >>>> using nasm-2.14.02 or yasm-1.3.0 >>>> Both build appear to be successful. >>>> >>>> Could someone elaborate about >>>> "currently broken". >>>> >>> >>> Hmmm, Looks like this sentence has been added by andy at revision 9049 in >>> 2011. I'd say the exact meaning of "currently broken" is: >>> "At a time between the introduction of that page into the book and present, >>> it >>> has been broken. And it is possible that nobody have tested since then." ;) >> >> No problem. >>> >>> Actually, it is not easy to test that: at a point in nasm life, or libvpx >>> life, a release allowed compiling libvpx against nasm again, and now you see >>> that. But owing to the heavy work on updating the book, it is too time >>> consuming to test that all packages work against all their dependencies, >>> specially when those dependencies have been disabled... >> >> Then.. lets consider I tested it, ;) >> >> May I suggest to update book, keeping "yasm requirement" and >> removing "currently broken", to avoid confusion... > > OK. I'll do that at my next commit. >
Please read my post! Pierre -- http://lists.linuxfromscratch.org/listinfo/blfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
