Diego Biurrun <[email protected]> writes: > On Mon, Jul 11, 2011 at 12:47:53AM +0100, Måns Rullgård wrote: >> Diego Biurrun <[email protected]> writes: >> >> > On Sun, Jul 10, 2011 at 11:44:53PM +0100, Måns Rullgård wrote: >> >> Diego Biurrun <[email protected]> writes: >> >> >> >> > None of the compiled binaries use any of libpostproc's symbols except >> >> > for trivial ones that print version information. Thus the dependency >> >> > yields no benefit and it is preferable to drop it. >> >> > --- >> >> > Makefile | 6 ++++-- >> >> > cmdutils.c | 2 -- >> >> > 2 files changed, 4 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-) >> >> >> >> [...] >> >> >> >> > +SUBDIRS-$(CONFIG_POSTPROC) += postproc >> >> > +SUBDIRS = $(SUBDIRS-yes) $(FFLIBS) >> >> >> >> This part feels a little weird. >> > >> > Do you have another suggestion? We use the -yes trick everywhere... >> >> That wasn't what I meant. > > You are speaking in riddles. It's unavoidable to work with two lists, > since the list of libraries to link against is not identical to the > list of libraries to install. Since the list of install libraries is > a superset of the link libraries, it makes sense to me to construct the > former out of the latter.
That's not what I meant either. I'm talking about how you construct that list I quoted. I just seems weird. Compare to other similar lists. -- Måns Rullgård [email protected] _______________________________________________ libav-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.libav.org/mailman/listinfo/libav-devel
