[FFmpeg-devel] [PATCH] dct-test compile fix

Jacob Meuser jakemsr
Tue Jun 24 23:53:32 CEST 2008

On Tue, Jun 24, 2008 at 10:20:56PM +0100, M?ns Rullg?rd wrote:
> "Ronald S. Bultje" <rsbultje at gmail.com> writes:
> > Hi Diego,
> >
> > On Tue, Jun 24, 2008 at 4:23 PM, Diego Biurrun <diego at biurrun.de> wrote:
> >> Are you still using your port of our build system to autoconf that
> >> manages to cram less features into more lines of code? ;-p
> >
> > As long as no proper make dist and distcheck replacements exist such
> > that it allows me to integrate it with 0 (zero) lines of (build) code
> > into any project that I base on ffmpeg: yes.
> >
> > (Actually, it's 2 lines of build code: I need
> > AC_CONFIG_SUBDIRS(ffmpeg) in my configure.ac and a SUBDIRS=ffmpeg in
> > the toplevel Makefile.am. Try beating that. :-).)
> The fallacy here is in the use of autoconf at all.  If the outer
> package didn't use autoconf, interfacing to FFmpeg's configure would
> be trivial.


I had to hack ffmpeg's build process more than most autotools
using projects to get ffmpeg to build and work on OpenBSD ...
including removal of some of the explicit OpenBSD support in the
configure script which has bit-rotted to the breaking point
(hint: shared library names).

autotools may be far less than ideal, but they are more or less
standard.  this has serious benefits that homegrown build systems
will never achieve.

well, at least you're only (ab)using GNU make as opposed to
say scons (shudder).

and no, I'm not going to send my patches back to you because
they are not "acceptable" and are purely "hacks" that most likely
break other platforms.  I don't have time to "correctly" fix the
problems, or argue what is or isn't "correct".  but if you're
interested, they will (most likely) show up at
within the next week.


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

More information about the ffmpeg-devel mailing list