On Fri, 6 Oct 2017, James Almer wrote:
On 10/6/2017 8:20 PM, James Almer wrote:
On 10/6/2017 5:20 PM, Marton Balint wrote:
Signed-off-by: Marton Balint <c...@passwd.hu>
---
Makefile | 3 +--
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 2 deletions(-)
diff --git a/Makefile b/Makefile
index 4a1253a052..adb8330fa0 100644
--- a/Makefile
+++ b/Makefile
@@ -97,8 +97,7 @@ include $(SRC_PATH)/doc/examples/Makefile
libavcodec/utils.o libavformat/utils.o libavdevice/avdevice.o
libavfilter/avfilter.o libavutil/utils.o libpostproc/postprocess.o
libswresample/swresample.o libswscale/utils.o : libavutil/ffversion.h
$(PROGS): %$(PROGSSUF)$(EXESUF): %$(PROGSSUF)_g$(EXESUF)
- $(CP) $< $@
- $(STRIP) $@
+ $(STRIP) -o $@ $<
LGTM. This is the best thing after stripping on install, which seems to
be disliked.
Actually, configure seems to consider cases where STRIP is something
else than binutils' strip.
I guess it's known and tested to work with the to-be-stripped binary as
the only argument, but would -o work with every potential strip program,
or for that matter binutils on every supported platform? I already got
bitten by MacOS's install not accepting -T.
With the v2 patch I sent, more cases are handled when strip is not a
traditional strip command.
I did a quick check of online man pages, and it seems to me only some very
uncommon or very old platforms does not support -o.
So I can either keep the patch as is, (with direct stripping turned on
by default) and fix OS/platforms as fate detects them, or we can make it
opt-in for the known platforms, if we are very afraid of breaking stuff.
Regards,
Marton
_______________________________________________
ffmpeg-devel mailing list
ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org
http://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-devel
