On 11-5-2017 13:56, Stephen Hutchinson <qyo...@gmail.com> wrote: > On 5/11/2017 7:43 AM, Reino Wijnsma wrote: >> https://trac.ffmpeg.org/ticket/6377#comment:2: >>> Inadequate for building FFPlay, yes. But perhaps not for other >>> software. >>> Are there any downsides to my proposition? >> I could of course contact the sdl2 developers, but when 'sdl2-config' >> already has the librarylist setup right to build FFPlay, why not just do >> the 'sdl2-config'-check first? Is there are reason why FFMpeg's >> 'configure' does the 'check_pkg_config sdl2'-check first? > Those libs mentioned as 'missing' in the ticket are not > supposed to be public, since they're MinGW-w64 system libs; > at least here, they *are* in sdl2.pc, under Libs.private. > And the proper way to get pkg-config to recognize that is > to set the --static flag. > > IIRC, this should only be a problem when building as static, > and as mentioned above, that means you should be setting > --pkg-config-flags="--static" when configuring FFmpeg. Hmm, I didn't know about --pkg-config-flags="--static". I've just done a ./configure [...] --pkg-config-flags=--static and in 'config.log' I can see "ffplay=yes". I haven't done a make install yet, but I assume FFPlay will be build without problems. If not, I'll report back at you. Thanks, qyot27!
_______________________________________________ ffmpeg-devel mailing list ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org http://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-devel
