[Ffmpeg-devel] Makefile consolidation

[Diego Biurrun]

On Sun, Feb 12, 2006 at 06:06:17PM +0000, M?ns Rullg?rd wrote:
> Diego Biurrun <diego at biurrun.de> writes:
> 
> > On Sun, Feb 12, 2006 at 12:45:54AM +0000, M?ns Rullg?rd wrote:
> >
> > I think I really like this.  Hey, it would even be a perfect moment for
> > taking a stab at the auto* tools :-)
> 
> Creating a useful alternative to autotools is one of my longterm
> todos.  Unfortunately, I seem to never get around to actually doing
> it.

That would be wonderful...

> >> --- libavcodec/libpostproc/Makefile	11 Feb 2006 20:54:40 -0000	1.42
> >> +++ libavcodec/libpostproc/Makefile	12 Feb 2006 00:39:12 -0000
> >> @@ -1,81 +1,28 @@
> >>  
> >> +CFLAGS  = $(OPTFLAGS) $(MLIB_INC) -I. -I.. -I$(SRC_PATH)/libavcodec -I../.. $(EXTRA_INC)
> >
> > I wonder whether all those -I options are not redundant, but this is
> > outside the scope of your patch for the moment..
> 
> I noticed a few other potential targets for cleanup too, but I think
> it's better to leave those for later.

Agreed.

> >> --- /dev/null	2005-09-30 08:27:56.000000000 +0100
> >> +++ common.mak	2006-02-12 00:30:22.032867585 +0000
> >> @@ -0,0 +1,98 @@
> >> +
> >> +INSTLIBTARGETS = 
> >> +ifeq ($(BUILD_SHARED),yes)
> >> +INSTLIBTARGETS += install-lib-shared
> >> +endif
> >> +ifeq ($(BUILD_STATIC),yes)
> >> +INSTLIBTARGETS += install-lib-static
> >> +endif
> >
> > I think you can leave out the empty variable declaration.
> 
> You're probably right.  I just seem to recall getting some message
> about += being used with an unassigned variable some time.  Maybe that
> was a non-gnu make (all bets are off an AIX).

Let's leave it out then...

> > There's also some trailing whitespace on that line.
> 
> How bad of me.

Nah, my script would have rejected the commit anyway.  I just wanted to
spare you the trouble...

Which makes me wonder..  You don't have (show-trailing-whitespace t) in
your .emacs?

> >> +install-headers:
> >> +	install -m 644 $(addprefix "$(SRC_DIR)"/,$(HEADERS)) "$(incdir)"
> >
> > Oh, I notice that I likely broke out-of-tree header installation..
> 
> Yes, you did.  That was why I started looking at the makefiles in the
> first place.

Does out-of-tree build work?

> To fix it I'd have to make the same change in all of the
> makefiles.  I thought it would be a better idea to collect all the
> common parts in one place.

Keep that attitude :)

Diego