On Fri, May 05, 2017 at 11:36:05AM +0200, Hendrik Leppkes wrote: > On Fri, May 5, 2017 at 9:57 AM, Clément Bœsch <u...@pkh.me> wrote: > > On Fri, May 05, 2017 at 12:54:12AM -0700, Aaron Levinson wrote: > > [...] > >> > Back to your issue: you should fix the .pc in the upstream project, this > >> > is the correct fix. > >> > >> The "upstream project" in this case is the Intel Media SDK. This is not an > >> open source project, and developers get it through Intel in the form of an > >> installation package on Windows. So, there is no opportunity to "fix the > >> .pc"--there isn't one, nor is there any way to contribute one. > > > > OK so we have a common configure flag for supporting two different > > projects with different authors, licensing, etc? > > > > Maybe we should have 2 configure flags? Add --enable-libmfxintel or > > whatever? > > > > I think having separate flags would just be annoying. Lucas > redistribution is in no sense "official" in any way, and what if > someone else comes up with another re-package of the same thing?
> The key information here is, upstream libmfx does not actually have a > pkg-config file, that some re-distributions add one is nice and all, > and we can use that if present, but we should also be able to use the > upstream variant which does not come with one at all. +1 [...] -- Michael GnuPG fingerprint: 9FF2128B147EF6730BADF133611EC787040B0FAB I do not agree with what you have to say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it. -- Voltaire
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
_______________________________________________ ffmpeg-devel mailing list ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org http://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-devel
