Diego Biurrun <di...@biurrun.de> writes: > On Wed, Jul 13, 2011 at 07:25:43PM +0100, Måns Rullgård wrote: >> Diego Biurrun <di...@biurrun.de> 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. -- Måns Rullgård m...@mansr.com _______________________________________________ libav-devel mailing list libav-devel@libav.org https://lists.libav.org/mailman/listinfo/libav-devel
