[Ffmpeg-devel] build systems

Sam Hocevar sam
Tue Sep 20 18:25:34 CEST 2005

On Tue, Sep 20, 2005, Michel Bardiaux wrote:

> >   More complicated projects usually require autoconf 2.59+ (q4 2003)
> >and libtool 1.5+ (q3 2003).
> That's exactly why (well, *one* of the reasons) I stopped contributing 
> to Lesstif: it wanted 2.59, while with my debian woody (6 months ago) I 
> was stuck at 2.53. Every time the metaconfig files changed I had to ask 
> somebody to run the autotools for me!

   You were asking someone else to run the autotools for you because you
could not be bothered to install autoconf and autoconf2.13 packages from
Debian testing on your computer? Wow.

> For other projects, 2.53 works but sometimes prints some 
> incomprehensible and frightening messages. It *seems* to work, but how 
> to be sure?

   Well, that remark would apply to any piece of software, especially
a compiler. But if upstream's bootstrap script was well thought and
accepts your version of the tools, there is no reason it should not

> The problem is, if ffmpeg were to go the autoway, it would be necessary 
> that anyone working on the metaconfig use exactly one and the same 
> version, to be sure some feature requiring some more recent autothing is 
> not used.

   As an author and/or autotools build system maintainer for at least
10 different projects (none of them requiring a specific version of the
autotools) I can tell you that this is absolutely not necessary, even
for a project as complex as ffmpeg. (by the way, I would be happy if
ffmpeg used that scheme because it makes cross-compiling and feature
detection a lot easier, but I am in no way trying to advocate it over
any other build system as far as ffmpeg is concerned)


More information about the ffmpeg-devel mailing list