[FFmpeg-devel] [PATCH 2/3] configure: Do not create/install versioned DLLs on OS/2.

KO Myung-Hun komh78 at gmail.com
Tue Apr 19 14:56:23 CEST 2016


Dmitriy Kuminov wrote:
> On 2016-04-18 11:52:15 +0000, KO Myung-Hun said:
>> Strange conclusion. Anyway not important.
> In Dave's case the symlink functionality check fails because it is
> performed in TMPDIR which is located on ramfs.ifs (which fails to use
> symlinks). But I believe his real build directory is not on ramfs.ifs
> and symlinks are in fact supported there (and can be used). But this
> problem is not OS/2-specific, it may happen on any platform where TMPDIR
> is on a volume that doesn't support symlinks for sojme reason. I think
> the FFmpeg guys should fix this check to make it performed inside the
> build directory, not in TMPDIR.
>> Good to know that. I wish to see the latest bash for OS/2 soon.
> Well, in fact, having bash would be not bad indeed, but since it has
> little impact on end users, this is postponed for later. Your
> contribution is (as always) welcome.
>> I meant those who don't use ln at all for compatibility with other OS/2
>> programs not built with kLIBC, like me.
> Okay, but still. I don't think ongoing OS/2 development should be
> chained by people like you :) (nothing personal, of course). For
> instance, you won't be able to build the latest Firefox if your system
> doesn't support symlinks (at least because of python's virtualenv). And
> I'm not going to invest time in making it work in such a case, not at
> all (it's a pure waste). This is clearly offtopic for this mailing list
> though, so let's continue this conversation in private if you want.
>> My "correction" is not removing ln_s overriding. I don't want to use ln
>> -s on OS/2.
> Sorry but I really doubt things affecting other people should happen or
> not happen just because you want it or not. We are all here to
> collaborate. I added what I needed and what I think is the best. You
> don't agree, that's OK, so I offered you a compromise - write your own
> patch that will make it work for you the way you want it w/o breaking
> what I need. You refuse to do so and I don't find it collaborative. It's
> upto FFmpeg maintainers to decide what to do here, but I won't accept
> symlink usage removal in our repositiries. I will, however, accept your
> patch that will allow to go both ways (with the symlink usage being the
> default choice if supported by the underlying IFS).

I don't understand why you insist on using symlink. Even if without it,
current FFmpeg works well, maybe better in according to Dave. I don't
know what is the benefit from using symlink.

And it is you who would be affecting other people due to a personal
favor. I just don't feel to do support symlink on OS/2 because it has no
additional benefits. In addition, symlink is not a must-feature, unlike
python's virtualenv.

I doubt that refusing to write codes for unnecessary features is not

Finally, ln_s part is not related to the other parts. Split this patch
into ln_s part and others, and re-send newly versioned patches, please.

KO Myung-Hun

Using Mozilla SeaMonkey 2.7.2
Under OS/2 Warp 4 for Korean with FixPak #15
In VirtualBox v4.1.32 on Intel Core i7-3615QM 2.30GHz with 8GB RAM

Korean OS/2 User Community : http://www.ecomstation.co.kr

More information about the ffmpeg-devel mailing list