[MPlayer-dev-eng] [PATCH] --enable-system-ffmpeg, was: linking external ffmpeg libs

[Reinhard Tartler]

On Wed, Aug 18, 2010 at 14:26:26 (CEST), Diego Biurrun wrote:

> On Wed, Aug 18, 2010 at 12:53:19PM +0200, Reinhard Tartler wrote:
>> On Tue, Aug 17, 2010 at 13:05:31 (CEST), Diego Biurrun wrote:
>> 
>> > On Fri, Aug 13, 2010 at 06:14:02PM +0200, Reinhard Tartler wrote:
>> >> On Fri, Aug 13, 2010 at 12:40:42 (CEST), Diego Biurrun wrote:
>> >> 
>> >> > On Thu, Aug 12, 2010 at 08:52:47AM -0400, Reinhard Tartler wrote:
>> >> >> On Thu, Aug 12, 2010 at 07:59:40 (EDT), Diego Biurrun wrote:
>> >> >> 
>> >> >> > On Wed, Aug 11, 2010 at 09:34:39PM +0100, Edd Barrett wrote:
>> >> >> >> 
>> >> >> >> From a packager POV, linking mplayer to an existing ffmpeg package's
>> >> >> >> libav* is an attractive option. Is there an easy way to not build
>> >> >> >> mplayers internal libav*, but to use one in ffmpeg's shared objects?
>> >> >> >> 
>> >> >> >> If not, could I encourage an option in the build system?
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > ./configure --help
>> >> >> 
>> >> >> I reckon he is asking for something like
>> >> >> 
>> >> >> $ ./configure --with-system-ffmpeg
>> >> >> 
>> >> >> as shortcut for the various --disable_libavfoo_a options. Diego, at
>> >> >> FOSDEM, you've indicated sympathy with such a switch, has your opinion
>> >> >> changed since then? If not, I'll try to come up with a patch for that
>> >> >> next week when I'm back home.
>> >> >
>> >> > Go right ahead.
>> >> 
>> >> I don't know if this is the nicest patch, but it does work for me, and
>> >> produces a much nicer configuration string:
>> >
>> > I'm thinking that we should maybe just check for FFmpeg once and not for
>> > each library separately.  What do you think?
>> 
>> I think this boils down to the question "does it make sense to link
>> some ffmpeg libraries statically and some dynamically?"
>
> Is there a scenario where mixed linking modes make sense?  I cannot
> imagine one off the top of my head...

I cannot either. Let's wait for about a week or so so people can express
their opinion. If nobody objects, I'll have a look at implementing that
simplification.

>> If the answer is  "We want to link either everything statically or
>> everything dynamically", then I think we should provide a single
>> switch, yes.
>
> Agreed.
>
>> Since I think this patch is ready and improves the status quo, would you
>> mind if I apply it now anyway?  We can decide to refactor the whole
>> ffmpeg linking situation afterwards as well, no?
>
> I don't think this will really save us time, but since you are the one
> investing the time and you want it, I say go right ahead if you feel
> like it...

Applied. I wanted this in trunk in order to backport it for rc4...

-- 
Gruesse/greetings,
Reinhard Tartler, KeyID 945348A4