headers
Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski | 5 Jan 2007 10:21

Re: [PATCH] shared libavutil support

On Thursday, 04 January 2007 at 19:46, Reimar Döffinger wrote:
> Hello,
> On Fri, Dec 29, 2006 at 05:32:50PM +0200, Ivan Kalvachev wrote:
> > 2006/12/28, Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski <dominik <at> rangers.eu.org>:
> > >On Thursday, 28 December 2006 at 01:53, Aurelien Jacobs wrote:
> > >> On Tue, 26 Dec 2006 22:08:50 +0100
> > >> Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski <dominik <at> rangers.eu.org> wrote:
> > >>
> > >> > Fixes build with shared libavutil.
> > >> >
> > >> > I'll apply this tomorrow evening if there are no objections.
> > >>
> > >> I havn't really looked at it, but seeing the patch, I would guess
> > >> that the problem is in fact in configure. Maybe it should find
> > >> the path of installed ffmpeg header and add something like
> > >> -I/usr/include/ffmpeg.
> > >> Well, that's only wild guessing and rough idea. Don't trust it
> > >> too much.
> > >
> > >The same is already done for shared libavcodec.
> > >
> > >Regards,
> > >R.
> > 
> > I donno why, but I have the feeling that libavutil is not meant  to be
> > used as shared by MPlayer.
> 
> It is not, since MPlayer needs some headers that are not installed for
> the shared version. It can only compile by combining code from shared
> libavutil and the code in the libavutil/ subdir, which is at least
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply |
headers
Diego Biurrun | 7 Jan 2007 01:26
Picon
Gravatar

Re: [PATCH] shared libavutil support

On Fri, Jan 05, 2007 at 10:21:34AM +0100, Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski wrote:
> On Thursday, 04 January 2007 at 19:46, Reimar Döffinger wrote:
> > On Fri, Dec 29, 2006 at 05:32:50PM +0200, Ivan Kalvachev wrote:
> > > 2006/12/28, Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski <dominik <at> rangers.eu.org>:
> > > >On Thursday, 28 December 2006 at 01:53, Aurelien Jacobs wrote:
> > > >> On Tue, 26 Dec 2006 22:08:50 +0100
> > > >> Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski <dominik <at> rangers.eu.org> wrote:
> > > >>
> > > >> > Fixes build with shared libavutil.
> > > >> >
> > > >> > I'll apply this tomorrow evening if there are no objections.
> > > >>
> > > >> I havn't really looked at it, but seeing the patch, I would guess
> > > >> that the problem is in fact in configure. Maybe it should find
> > > >> the path of installed ffmpeg header and add something like
> > > >> -I/usr/include/ffmpeg.
> > > >> Well, that's only wild guessing and rough idea. Don't trust it
> > > >> too much.
> > > >
> > > >The same is already done for shared libavcodec.
> > > 
> > > I donno why, but I have the feeling that libavutil is not meant  to be
> > > used as shared by MPlayer.
> > 
> > It is not, since MPlayer needs some headers that are not installed for
> > the shared version. It can only compile by combining code from shared
> > libavutil and the code in the libavutil/ subdir, which is at least
> > risky...
> 
> Why is there --disable-libavutil then?
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply |
headers
Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski | 7 Jan 2007 12:26

Re: [PATCH] shared libavutil support

On Sunday, 07 January 2007 at 01:26, Diego Biurrun wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 05, 2007 at 10:21:34AM +0100, Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski wrote:
> > On Thursday, 04 January 2007 at 19:46, Reimar Döffinger wrote:
> > > On Fri, Dec 29, 2006 at 05:32:50PM +0200, Ivan Kalvachev wrote:
> > > > 2006/12/28, Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski <dominik <at> rangers.eu.org>:
> > > > >On Thursday, 28 December 2006 at 01:53, Aurelien Jacobs wrote:
> > > > >> On Tue, 26 Dec 2006 22:08:50 +0100
> > > > >> Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski <dominik <at> rangers.eu.org> wrote:
> > > > >>
> > > > >> > Fixes build with shared libavutil.
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> > I'll apply this tomorrow evening if there are no objections.
> > > > >>
> > > > >> I havn't really looked at it, but seeing the patch, I would guess
> > > > >> that the problem is in fact in configure. Maybe it should find
> > > > >> the path of installed ffmpeg header and add something like
> > > > >> -I/usr/include/ffmpeg.
> > > > >> Well, that's only wild guessing and rough idea. Don't trust it
> > > > >> too much.
> > > > >
> > > > >The same is already done for shared libavcodec.
> > > > 
> > > > I donno why, but I have the feeling that libavutil is not meant  to be
> > > > used as shared by MPlayer.
> > > 
> > > It is not, since MPlayer needs some headers that are not installed for
> > > the shared version. It can only compile by combining code from shared
> > > libavutil and the code in the libavutil/ subdir, which is at least
> > > risky...
> >
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply |
headers
Reimar Döffinger | 7 Jan 2007 12:33
Picon
Picon

Re: [PATCH] shared libavutil support

Hello,
On Sun, Jan 07, 2007 at 12:26:31PM +0100, Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski wrote:
> On Sunday, 07 January 2007 at 01:26, Diego Biurrun wrote:
> > On Fri, Jan 05, 2007 at 10:21:34AM +0100, Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski wrote:
[...]
> > > Why is there --disable-libavutil then?
> > 
> > Consistency.  Also, it was added back when the dependency on libavutil
> > was not that big.
> 
> So what you're saying is: if I use --disable-libavutil, all bets are off?
> I.e. it might explode and eat my cat?

Well, as far as I am concerned, everyone using any dynamic libav* is on
his/her/its own, I neither test nor otherwise support it.
libavutil is more risky because it is used more "deep inside" MPlayer.
Though as long as you always use _exactly_!! the same version as the one
included in MPlayer you probably shouldn't have any problems. Of course
if you do this I don't see why you would want to use the dynamic libs
then, I don't think any of the advantages remain then...

Greetings,
Reimar Döffinger
Permalink | Reply |
headers
Nico Sabbi | 7 Jan 2007 12:47
Picon

Re: [PATCH] shared libavutil support

Reimar Döffinger wrote:
> Hello,
> On Sun, Jan 07, 2007 at 12:26:31PM +0100, Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski wrote:
> 
>>So what you're saying is: if I use --disable-libavutil, all bets are off?
>>I.e. it might explode and eat my cat?
> 
> 
> Well, as far as I am concerned, everyone using any dynamic libav* is on
> his/her/its own, I neither test nor otherwise support it.
> libavutil is more risky because it is used more "deep inside" MPlayer.
> Though as long as you always use _exactly_!! the same version as the one
> included in MPlayer you probably shouldn't have any problems. Of course
> if you do this I don't see why you would want to use the dynamic libs
> then, I don't think any of the advantages remain then...
> 
> Greetings,
> Reimar Döffinger

it would be nice to have shared libavutil working, unfortunately
at the moment libswscale doesn't even compile

--

-- 
"Without a frontend, mplayer is useless" - someone in mplayer-users
Permalink | Reply |

Gmane