[FFmpeg-devel] [PATCH] define _BSD_SOURCE for bktr.c

[Jacob Meuser]

On Mon, Dec 15, 2008 at 10:41:34AM +0100, Diego Biurrun wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 15, 2008 at 02:50:48AM +0000, Jacob Meuser wrote:

> > (2) line 934 - use the hardware arch instead of machine arch.  this
> > was sent to me from another developer.
> 
> Why don't you just pass --arch=WHATEVER to configure?

this was from the person who, afaik, is going to be the next maintainer,
and is on this list ...

> > (3) line 953 - soname is generally not used on OpenBSD.  it was causing
> > problems, it is not necessary, so it was removed.  same with all the
> > linker flags.  not needed, causes problems.  OpenBSD ld is older ...
> > 
> > (12) line 1717 - again, more unneeded linker flags causing problems
> > 
> > (15) line 1841 - linker flags ...
> 
> An alternative would be to disable vhook on OpenBSD, many platforms do
> this.  But the real question would be: Why does check_ld fail?  It
> should not add non-working linker flags.

could happen, but someone wanted it so it's there.  I already take
enough "heat" for cleaning out "crap" in other parts of the system.
I don't need any more static because of some silly modules in ffmpeg.

I don't know why ld "passes" the test, but is actually "broken".
but it's "broken".  maybe the "test" should actually be a test of
functionality, instead of avaliability?

> > (4) line 965 - OpenBSD preferred library naming
> 
> This should be changed in the system-specific section (see darwin as an
> example), not globally.  This is what I call a typical unacceptable
> hack.

pretty sure I tried using the darwin stuff as an example.  I don't
remember exactly why, but it wasn't working for me.  maybe it's been
fixed since.

> > (9) line 1531 - that was from ppc person.  I assume it is an issue
> > with OpenBSD/ppc or the gcc version in OpenBSD.
> 
> IOW, it remains mysterious.  Patches without explanations should be
> dropped IMO...

also from the next maintainer.

> > that was put there by the previous maintainer ... imo it's not all that
> > mysterious.  no need to wonder, just ask.
> 
> IMO the cleaner solution is to add that environment variable to the call
> of the regression test from whatever script you are using to run it.  No
> need to patch the upstream sources.

yes, that's probably better.

-- 
jakemsr at sdf.lonestar.org
SDF Public Access UNIX System - http://sdf.lonestar.org