[FFmpeg-devel] FFmpeg packaging (was: Re: [PATCH] define _BSD_SOURCE for bktr.c)

[Diego Biurrun]

On Mon, Dec 15, 2008 at 05:05:29PM +0000, Jacob Meuser wrote:
> 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 ...

So who is that person?  Just step forward, I will gladly assist you
with packaging efforts on the next FFmpeg update for OpenBSD.  It worked
well for a handful of Linux distros so far, I don't see why it should
fail in this case.

> > > (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?

That's why I'm asking about the details: Without them it's impossible
to fix the root cause.

Diego