[FFmpeg-cvslog] r21226 - in trunk: Makefile common.mak subdir.mak
Tue Jan 26 04:44:20 CET 2010
Michael Niedermayer <michaelni at gmx.at> writes:
> On Mon, Jan 25, 2010 at 03:17:53AM +0000, M?ns Rullg?rd wrote:
>> Baptiste Coudurier <baptiste.coudurier at gmail.com> writes:
>> > On 1/15/10 11:26 AM, Reimar D?ffinger wrote:
>> >> On Fri, Jan 15, 2010 at 08:16:28PM +0100, ramiro wrote:
>> >>> Author: ramiro
>> >>> Date: Fri Jan 15 20:16:28 2010
>> >>> New Revision: 21226
>> >>> Log:
>> >>> Get one step closer to world domination.
>> >>> Remove "make uninstall".
>> >> I'm all for a joke, but how about at least printing something
>> >> useful in addition (if you really want after a sleep 1) like
>> >> "Actually this way of uninstalling is just too unreliable, consider
>> >> using a tool like (whatever Mans mentioned) and look in .... for
>> >> files to manually remove").
>> > Well, I'm all for a joke as well. However I do use make uninstall and
>> > I know why I'm using it. For example I want to remove the .a from a
>> > static compilation because I want to test shared libs, or vice versa.
>> That sounds like using the wrong tool for the job. If you don't want
>> static libs, use --disable-static. I don't even see how uninstall
>> could possibly be of relevance to what you seem to be describing.
>> > Printing the message is fine with me, but keep the uninstall working.
>> > Thanks for your understanding.
>> Keeping it working takes effort. I will not waste my time on
>> something that already has superior solutions.
> I also think the uninstall target was usefull to some users.
It was dangerous. Whatever people may have used if for, there are
better ways to do it.
> Would you be ok with baptiste putting it back and maintaining it?
No. It's not practical to have different people maintaining their own
little fragments of the makefiles. Besides, I'm against having that
target there at all.
mans at mansr.com
More information about the ffmpeg-cvslog