[FFmpeg-devel] Fix mingw name of .lib files

Måns Rullgård mans
Wed Mar 5 20:20:38 CET 2008

Gonzalo Garramu?o <ggarra at advancedsl.com.ar> writes:

> Any way you look at it, the ffmpeg system is very similar to autotools. 
>   It is just simpler and customized to ffmpeg.  But fundamentally, it is 
> identical.

Our build system and the autotools are meant to solve the same
problem, i.e. that of compiling the source code and linking the object
files.  It is hardly surprising that there are superficial
similarities between the solution.  I really see no point in being
different just for the sake of it.

> A make system that I would call really different would be something like 
> scons or bjam (that does not even use make at all) or something like 
> rake (which uses meta-programming to define rules).

Plain old "make" does the job perfectly fine, much better, in fact,
than most of those attempts at replacements.  I see no need for
reinventing that particular wheel.

>> What was your point again?
> The *original* point of the thread was about .lib files without
> versioning and how that prevents easily
> installing/shipping/deploying/supporting ffmpeg and future versions.  So

My patience with you is growing very thin.  If the majority of Windows
coders are as thick-headed as you appear to be, it's no surprise most
Windows applications are as rubbish as they are.

> far, you have not explained to me how the current approach is superior.

I am under no obligation to explain anything to you.  All the FFmpeg
developers are quite happy with the way the build system works.  If
you want a change, it is YOU who must explain to US why.  That you
want it that way is not a valid argument.

M?ns Rullg?rd
mans at mansr.com

More information about the ffmpeg-devel mailing list