On 8/6/19 10:46 AM, Jean-Marc Pigeon via blfs-dev wrote:
On 08/06/2019 11:36 AM, Bruce Dubbs via blfs-dev wrote:
On 8/6/19 10:24 AM, Pierre Labastie via blfs-dev wrote:
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!
I did. What specifically?
-- Bruce
To summerize my understanding of the URL Pierre gave.
"better to compile libvpx with yasm, because a trouble with firefox"
But this give no objective data about the kind of "trouble"
(which will be in firefox)
I still suggest to remove "currently broken" as it wasn't/(can't be?)
described and cannot be confirmed.
I said I will do that.
-- Bruce
--
http://lists.linuxfromscratch.org/listinfo/blfs-dev
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html
Unsubscribe: See the above information page
